Vaughn v. City of Carbondale

29 N.E.3d 668

Jeffrey W. VAUGHN, Plaintiff–Appellant

v.The CITY OF CARBONDALE, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 5–14–0122.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.

March 25, 2015.

Patrick T. Sharpe, Maurizio & Sharpe, Marion, IL, attorney for appellant.

P. Michael Kimmel, City Attorney, Carbondale, IL, attorney for appellee.

OPINION

Justice WELCH delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 The plaintiff, Jeffrey Vaughn, sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendant, the City of Carbondale, from terminating his employer-provided health insurance coverage in accordance with section 10 of the Public Safety Employee Benefits Act (the Act) (820 ILCS 320/10 (West 2012) ). The circuit court of Jackson County entered an order denying the complaint. For the reasons which follow, we reverse the decision of the circuit court and remand for further proceedings.

¶ 2 On June 28, 2005, the plaintiff, who was a police officer for the City of Carbondale (the City), was on duty when he was stopped by a motorist asking for directions. While he was outside his squad car talking with the motorist, he received a request from a police dispatcher for him to respond over the radio. He returned to his vehicle and reached headfirst through his driver's side door, which he had left open, in an attempt to retrieve his radio from inside the car. As he was reaching inside the vehicle, he struck the top of his head on the door frame, causing him to “see stars” and experience an immediate sharp pain in his arm. After his shift, he sought medical attention from his personal physician, who took him off duty as a result of his injury.

¶ 3 Thereafter, in April 2007, the plaintiff applied for a line-of-duty disability pension pursuant to section 3–114.1 of the Illinois Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/3–114.1 (West 2006) ). Following a hearing on his application, the Carbondale Police Pension Board (the Board) made a finding that the plaintiff was not injured as a result of his employment with the police department. The plaintiff appealed the decision of the Board, and the circuit court of Jackson County reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the evidence supported the finding that the plaintiff was injured during the course of his employment and was therefore eligible for a line-of-duty pension. This court affirmed the circuit court's decision on May 25, 2011. Vaughn v. Carbondale Police Pension Board, No. 5–10–0293 (2011) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23 ).

¶ 4 As a result of the plaintiff's duty-related disability, the plaintiff, in a letter dated January 26, 2012, requested that the City provide him health insurance coverage in accordance with section 10 of the Act (820 ILCS 320/10 (West 2012) ), which provides health insurance coverage for injured law enforcement officers and their families under certain circumstances. Shortly thereafter, the City provided the plaintiff and his wife with health insurance coverage without any objection. In 2012, the Board directed the plaintiff to submit to a physical examination as required by the Illinois Pension Code. The plaintiff complied. After receiving the medical report rendered as a result of the medical examination, the Board met to determine whether the plaintiff's line-of-duty pension benefits should be continued or terminated. The Board thereafter filed a decision, which terminated the plaintiff's pension payments effective July 26, 2012, in light of the medical examiner's finding that the plaintiff was able to return to work as a police officer. In July 2012, the Board sent the plaintiff a letter advising him of its decision.

¶ 5 In August 2012, the plaintiff filed a complaint for administrative review in the circuit court of Jackson County, cause No. 12–MR–156. The circuit court affirmed the Board's decision to terminate the plaintiff's disability pension benefits. The plaintiff then appealed to this court, which, on June 30, 2014, reversed the circuit court's decision on the basis that the plaintiff was denied procedural due process where he was not given notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Board terminated his pension benefits. Vaughn v. Carbondale Police Pension Board, 2014 IL App (5th) 130457–U, 2014 WL 2999067. This court did not address the issue of whether the Board's determination that the plaintiff was no longer disabled was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 6 While the appeal on the termination of the plaintiff's disability pension benefits in cause No. 12–MR–156 was pending, the plaintiff filed the complaint at issue in this appeal, which sought a permanent injunction preventing the City from terminating his employer-provided health insurance coverage. After considering the briefs submitted by the parties and the circuit court's decision in cause No. 12–MR–156, the circuit court declined to enter a permanent injunction. The court found that the plaintiff had not suffered a catastrophic injury, which was required under section 10 of the Act (820 ILCS 320/10 (West 2012) ), in order to receive employer-provided health insurance coverage, because the medical examination had indicated that the plaintiff was able to return to work as a police officer and had recovered from his disability. The order denying the permanent injunction was entered before this court reversed the Board's decision to terminate the plaintiff's pension disability benefits. The plaintiff appeals the denial of the permanent injunction.

¶ 7 On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the circuit court erred in denying his request that the City be required to permanently provide health insurance to him and his wife pursuant to the Act and that there was no statutory basis to terminate the provided insurance coverage once awarded. In response, the City argues that the plaintiff was not entitled to lifetime health insurance coverage under the Act because his work-related injury was not incurred as the result of his response to fresh pursuit or his response to what he reasonably believed to be an emergency, an unlawful act perpetrated by another, or during the investigation of a criminal act. Furthermore, the City argues that awarded lifetime health insurance coverage can be terminated under the Act.

¶ 8 A party seeking a permanent injunction must show (1) a clear and ascertainable right in need of protection, (2) irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted, and (3) no adequate remedy at law. Sparks v. Gray, 334 Ill.App.3d 390, 395, 268 Ill.Dec. 103, 777 N.E.2d 1026 (2002). Section 10 of the Act provides, in relevant part, that injured full-time law enforcement officers and their families are eligible to receive health insurance benefits if two conditions are satisfied. 820 ILCS 320/10 (West 2012) ; Village of Vernon Hills v. Heelan, 2014 IL App (2d) 130823, ¶ 18, 383 Ill.Dec. 611, 14 N.E.3d 1222. First, the officer must have suffered a catastrophic injury in the line of duty. 820 ILCS 320/10(a) (West 2012). Second, the injury must have occurred as the result of the officer's response to fresh pursuit or the officer's response to what is reasonably believed to be an emergency, an unlawful act perpetrated by another, or during the investigation of a criminal act. 820 ILCS 320/10(b) (West 2012). The officer must satisfy both of these requirements to be entitled to benefits. Gaffney v. Board of Trustees of the Orland Fire Protection District, 2012 IL 110012, ¶¶ 53–57, 360 Ill.Dec. 549, 969 N.E.2d 359.

¶ 9 The Act does not define the term “catastrophic injury.” However, our supreme court has concluded that the phrase “catastrophic injury” as used in the Act is synonymous with an injury resulting in the awarding of a line-of-duty disability pension under section 4–110 of the Illinois Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/4–110 (West 2012) ). Krohe v. City of Bloomington, 204 Ill.2d 392, 400, 273 Ill.Dec. 779, 789 N.E.2d 1211 (2003) ; see also Nowak v. City of Country Club Hills, 2011 IL 111838, ¶ 12, 354 Ill.Dec. 825, 958 N.E.2d 1021.

¶ 10 In the present case, the circuit court determined that the plaintiff had not suffered a catastrophic injury because the Board had terminated the plaintiff's line-of-duty pension benefits. However, subsequent to the circuit court's decision, this court reinstated the plaintiff's pension benefits on the basis that the plaintiff was denied procedural due process where he was not given notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Board had terminated those benefits. Therefore, the circuit court's reasoning for denying health insurance benefits under the Act to the plaintiff is no longer applicable. The Board acknowledges in its brief that the plaintiff's injury is “arguably ‘catastrophic’ ” because the plaintiff's pension benefits were reinstated. Although we recognize that the plaintiff's line-of-duty pension disability benefits could again be terminated by the Board, which could affect his eligibility for health insurance coverage under section 10 of the Act, we conclude, consistent with Krohe and Nowak, that the plaintiff has suffered a “catastrophic injury” within the meaning of section 10(a) of the Act because he is currently receiving a disability pension for his work-related injury.

¶ 11 The remaining issue, therefore, is whether the injury occurred as the result of one of the circumstances set forth in section 10(b) of the Act. As previously explained, section 10(b) of the Act requires that the catastrophic injury must have occurred as a result of the officer's response to fresh pursuit, the officer's response to what is reasonably believed to be an emergency, an unlawful act perpetrated by another, or during the investigation of a criminal act. 820 ILCS 320/10(b) (West 2012). The plaintiff argues that his injury falls under the following two circumstances: the injury occurred as a result of the officer's response to what is reasonably believed to be an emergency and as the result of the officer's response during the investigation of a criminal act.

...