{
  "id": 2640621,
  "name": "NEAL CAAUWE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. POLICE PENSION BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF MIDLOTHIAN, Respondent-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Caauwe v. Police Pension Board",
  "decision_date": "1989-05-26",
  "docket_number": "No. 1\u201486\u20143103",
  "first_page": "482",
  "last_page": "486",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "184 Ill. App. 3d 482"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "392 N.E.2d 417",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 Ill. App. 3d 978",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3265214
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/73/0978-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 429,
    "char_count": 8604,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.781,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.682335924627398e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6977655840166743
    },
    "sha256": "649a7f34851fd856203b0bf668c1bf9b84b1b5d10f8c9769ba1241eed98f1edc",
    "simhash": "1:6b0968f574358c54",
    "word_count": 1326
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:19:22.278456+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "NEAL CAAUWE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. POLICE PENSION BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF MIDLOTHIAN, Respondent-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE PINCHAM\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPetitioner, Neal Caauwe, petitioned the trial court to reverse the decision of the defendant, Police Pension Board of the Village of Midlothian (Pension Board), which denied his application for a policeman\u2019s disability pension under the Illinois Pension Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 108\u00bd, par. 3 \u2014 101 et seq.). The trial court affirmed the Pension Board\u2019s decision. Petitioner appeals. The facts are as follows.\nPetitioner filed an application for a policeman\u2019s disability pension with the Pension Board of the Village of Midlothian. The Pension Board held an evidentiary hearing. The evidence established that petitioner had been employed nine years with the Midlothian police department. According to petitioner\u2019s testimony, he first injured his back on June 1, 1977, during an altercation with a prisoner, when the prisoner tossed him against the wall of a jail cell. Petitioner missed no work as result of this incident. Two weeks later, on June 15, 1977, petitioner again injured his back while preparing to cut the grass in the yard of his residence. Petitioner twisted his back and could not move. Four days later, on June 19, 1977, petitioner went to South Chicago Hospital for emergency treatment. The following day, on June 20, 1977, petitioner was admitted to Michael Reese Hospital, where he was hospitalized until June 28, 1977. About four months later, on October 24, 1977, petitioner was again hospitalized and underwent a laminectomy. On December 29, 1977, petitioner returned to work. The record does not reveal when petitioner first stopped working because of his back injury.\nPursuant to the provisions of the Illinois Pension Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 108\u00bd, par. 3 \u2014 101 et seq.) governing disability pensions, petitioner applied for a policeman\u2019s disability pension. Petitioner was examined by three physicians, Drs. James Bianchin, Albert Bosch, and Anthony Brown, selected by the Pension Board to determine the existence and extent of petitioner\u2019s disability. Dr. Bianchin\u2019s findings, presented to the Pension Board in the form of a report, concluded that petitioner \u201cis capable of performing a sedentary-type job but he cannot function in the formal capacity of a police officer. *** I do not believe that the above named officer is completely disabled in the sense that he is not capable of employment.\u201d Dr. Bosch\u2019s finding, also presented to the Pension Board in the form of a report, concluded that petitioner would benefit from reduced physical activities that require bending and lifting and that petitioner remained a high risk spine patient. Dr. Brown\u2019s findings, which were the most extensive, concluded that petitioner demonstrated \u201csome symptomatology; however, he appears to have functioned quite well at his present activity level and *** does not appear to be a candidate for retirement. Statistically, it would be anticipated that improvement would occur with weight reduction and a home exercise program.\u201d All of the foregoing medical evidence was presented in the form of uncertified, unsworn, unverified written medical reports of the respective doctors. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the Pension Board found from a review of the doctors\u2019 reports that \u201cthese three doctors do not all certify Detective Caauwe\u2019s disability\u201d and denied petitioner\u2019s application for a disability pension.\nPetitioner sought administrative review by the trial court of the Pension Board\u2019s decision under the Administrative Review Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 110, par. 264 et seq.). After considering the record of the proceedings before the Pension Board, the trial court affirmed the Pension Board\u2019s denial of petitioner\u2019s application for a disability pension. The trial court found that the Pension Board\u2019s finding that the three doctors did not certify petitioner\u2019s disability was not against the manifest weight of evidence. The trial court concluded that petitioner could do \u201call kinds of things that policemen can do that don\u2019t involve the difficult street *** work and therefore the Pension Board\u2019s findings that the evidence heard *** was insufficient to justify disability award is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.\u201d\nOn appeal, petitioner contends that because the doctors failed to certify petitioner\u2019s disability, or lack of disability, in their medical reports, there was insufficient evidence before the Pension Board on which to predicate any finding of disability or a lack thereof. Petitioner also asserts that certification by the doctors that petitioner was not disabled was mandatory under section 3 \u2014 115 of the Pension Code and that because the doctors\u2019 reports lacked certification of petitioner\u2019s disability, the cause should be remanded to the Pension Board for such certification by the doctors of their doctors\u2019 report. We agree.\nA former prerequisite for obtaining a policeman\u2019s disability pension was embodied in section 3 \u2014 115 of the Illinois Pension Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 108\u00bd, par. 3 \u2014 115) which stated:\n\u201cA disability pension shall not be paid unless there shall be filed with the Board, certificates of the policeman\u2019s disability, subscribed and sworn to by *** 3 practicing physicians in the municipality. The board may require other evidence of disability.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nIn Hodges v. Board of Trustees (1979), 73 Ill. App. 3d 978, 392 N.E.2d 417, plaintiff petitioned the trial court for review of an administrative decision of the defendant, board of trustees of Granite City police pension fund, which denied his application for a policeman\u2019s disability pension. The trial court found that plaintiff\u2019s disability arose out of his employment, reversed the board of trustees\u2019 decision and awarded plaintiff a service-connected disability pension, 65% of his monthly salary. The board of trustees appealed and on appeal argued that the trial court\u2019s order reversing its decision and awarding plaintiff a disability pension was error in view of the conflicting medical evidence of plaintiff\u2019s disability and, also, because plaintiff refused to undergo another physical examination requested by the board of trustees. This court vacated the board of trustees\u2019 decision and the trial court\u2019s order and remanded the case to the board of trustees to take additional evidence.\nUnder Hodges, either plaintiff or the board of trustees could have produced certificates of plaintiff\u2019s disability of \u201c3 practicing physicians\u201d for the pension board to determine the existence of a disability. Once the three certificates were submitted, the pension board was empowered to admit and weigh additional evidence relative to either granting or denying the disability pension request.\nThe January 1985 amendment of section 3 \u2014 115 provides that a disability pension shall not be paid by the Pension Board unless \u201c3 practicing physicians selected by the board\u201d issue their subscribed and sworn to certificates of the applicant\u2019s disability. To obtain a policeman\u2019s disability pension, section 3 \u2014 115 of the Illinois Pension Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 108\u00bd, par. 3 \u2014 115), as amended in January 1985, provides:\n\u201cA disability pension shall not be paid unless there is filed with the board certificates of the police officer\u2019s disability, subscribed and sworn to by *** 3 practicing physicians selected by the board. The board may require Other evidence of disability.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nThe foregoing language of the Pension Code is clear. Section 3 \u2014 115 of the Pension Code mandates the Pension Board to select \u201c3 practicing physicians\u201d and requires them to furnish the Pension Board with subscribed and sworn to certificates of the applicant\u2019s disability. The Pension Board, in the case at bar, did not require the \u201c3 physicians selected by the board\u201d to furnish certificates of the applicant\u2019s disability and the three physicians did not submit such certificates. Therefore, the trial court\u2019s order affirming the Pension Board\u2019s denial of petitioner\u2019s pension disability is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Pension Board for it to receive certifications of the three doctors of petitioner\u2019s disability or lack thereof.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nLORENZ and COCCIA, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE PINCHAM"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stanley H. Jakala, of Berwyn, for appellant.",
      "John B. Murphey, of Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Murphy & Cope, P.C., of Chicago, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NEAL CAAUWE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. POLICE PENSION BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF MIDLOTHIAN, Respondent-Appellee.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 1\u201486\u20143103\nOpinion filed May 26, 1989.\n\u2014 Rehearing denied June 16, 1989.\nStanley H. Jakala, of Berwyn, for appellant.\nJohn B. Murphey, of Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Murphy & Cope, P.C., of Chicago, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0482-01",
  "first_page_order": 504,
  "last_page_order": 508
}