{ "id": 521035, "name": "KENNETH ANTONELLI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE HILLSIDE POLICE PENSION BOARD et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Antonelli v. Board of Trustees of the Hillside Police Pension Board", "decision_date": "1997-03-31", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201496\u20141580", "first_page": "348", "last_page": "354", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "287 Ill. App. 3d 348" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "135 Ill. App. 3d 827", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3599362 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "838" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/135/0827-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 Ill. 2d 260", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2934533 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "262-63" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/54/0260-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 Ill. App. 3d 406", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2494366 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "409" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/195/0406-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 Ill. 2d 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 4738801 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "88" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/153/0076-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 640, "char_count": 14121, "ocr_confidence": 0.763, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.5613744767619738e-07, "percentile": 0.6769929443762938 }, "sha256": "8c107011ccc50fa6546a9533b9962e9a9a7e1bd48e052bd79ad6034c937e8c35", "simhash": "1:57a7c146562ee42c", "word_count": 2277 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:23:12.186621+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "KENNETH ANTONELLI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE HILLSIDE POLICE PENSION BOARD et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE GALLAGHER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff Kenneth Antonelli appeals from the judgment of the circuit court affirming an administrative order of the Board of Trustees of the Hillside Police Pension Board (board) revoking his disability pension. He contends that the board\u2019s termination of his benefits was against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nPlaintiff, a police officer with the Hillside police department, was granted a duty-related disability pension in March 1981. At a hearing before the board in August 1991, plaintiff appeared without counsel and acknowledged that he had not submitted the most recent required annual medical report. Plaintiff stated that he had degenerative disk disease and was still experiencing lower back pain for which he now took Tylenol or Motrin. He played no sports and worked part-time from his home preparing Medicare and supplemental insurance forms for senior citizens. The hearing was continued to permit plaintiff to visit his own physician and provide the board with medical documentation to support his claim.\nAt the time, the board had before it reports by two physicians who had examined plaintiff. In a March 1990 report by Dr. John Dwyer, plaintiff was given no restrictions for sitting, standing, walking or motor vehicle operation. He was restricted from bending, stooping or squatting repetitively and restricted from lifting more than 20 pounds with \"occasional\u201d lifting up to 45 pounds. Dr. Dwyer recommended that plaintiff be assigned to \"light duty,\u201d which could be modified upward as plaintiff\u2019s weight tolerance improved. The doctor\u2019s report was based upon a low back evaluation by a physical therapist.\nThe board also had a May 1990 report by Dr. David Spencer, who stated that plaintiffs X rays were normal and that plaintiff did not report significant pain or disability. Plaintiff had refused to have a lumbar CT scan, which the doctor had recommended because there had been no diagnostic tests for three years. In a followup report at the end of August 1991, Dr. Spencer reported that plaintiff was not disabled to perform the duties of a policeman, and he prescribed no medication.\nIn September 1991 plaintiff submitted a report by Dr. William Dobozi, who stated that plaintiff reported \"more pain in his lower back and recurrence of his sciatic pain into his left leg and left foot\u201d and that the pain was worse than previously experienced. According to Dr. Dobozi, plaintiffs sciatic-type symptoms prevented him from doing heavy work or police work, and no change in plaintiffs condition warranted his return to work.\nOn October 16, 1991, the board issued its order rescinding plaintiff\u2019s disability pension. It found that plaintiff had failed to produce any evidence to support his continuing disability. It acknowledged Dr. Dobozi\u2019s report but stated that Dr. Dobozi had relied solely upon plaintiffs subjective complaints of pain. Plaintiff then filed a complaint requesting administrative review.\nAfter a hearing, the circuit court remanded the case to the board for further administrative proceedings to allow introduction of additional evidence and retained jurisdiction over the case.\nPlaintiff was again examined by the board\u2019s physicians and permitted to take their evidence depositions. He also visited Dr. Dobozi several times, and Dr. Dobozi\u2019s evidence deposition is part of the record. The report of Dr. Ronald Cheff, who examined plaintiff on October 25, 1991, is also included in the record. Dr. Cheff reported that plaintiff complained of persistent pain down his leg and pain to the left lumbar region. In his opinion plaintiff suffered from an L4-L5 root lesion on the left side. His report was supported by an EMG study.\nWhen Dr. Dobozi examined plaintiff in February 1993, plaintiff still continued to complain of lower back pain radiating into his left leg, and plaintiff stated that any activity increased the pain. The doctor confirmed that the 1991 EMG showed a nerve root lesion, which was the same as that shown in the 1981 EMG. In Dr. Dobozi\u2019s opinion, plaintiff was not able to return to his duties as a policeman. Dr. Dobozi\u2019s examination of plaintiff on January 18, 1994, which was supported by current X rays, was essentially the same.\nIn his deposition on March 10, 1994, Dr. Dobozi explained that plaintiff probably had a bulging disk that pressed on his sciatic nerve producing pain down his leg. The disk was not herniated. Dr. Dobozi also believed that plaintiff suffered from lumbosacral radiculitis, an inflammation of the nerve root which referred pain into the leg, and radiculopathy, weakness in the muscles supplied by the damaged nerves. In Dr. Dobozi\u2019s opinion, plaintiff could forego surgery as long as he performed only light activities, such as desk work. Surgery was no guarantee that his pain would be alleviated and physical therapy was temporary and not curative. In Dr. Dobozi\u2019s opinion, plaintiff\u2019s symptoms required conservative care in an effort not to herniate the bulging disk. For this he had prescribed anti-inflammatory and pain medications.\nAnother examination by Dr. Dobozi was conducted on February 16, 1995. It revealed that plaintiff now suffered from a degenerative disk and that the injury was permanent.\nDr. Spencer evaluated plaintiff in February 1993 and June 30, 1994. He noted that plaintiff was having psychiatric problems but was in no discomfort with respect to his lower back condition. At his deposition on May 16, 1995, Dr. Spencer testified that the board had not forwarded any diagnostic records for his evaluation of plaintiff. He also testified that he did not make any specific observations about repetitive bending and lifting because repetitive work was not within a policeman\u2019s job description. His opinion was based upon his understanding of what a policeman routinely did.\nDr. Spencer recalled recommending that plaintiff undergo a CAT scan, which would show any evidence of nerve route compression due to tumors, infection, fractures, spinal stenosis, and disk herniation. An EMG identified nerve dysfunction. In reviewing Dr. ChefFs report, Dr. Spencer testified that a root lesion did not necessarily mean that plaintiff had radiculitis, and radiculitis referred to sciatic symptoms of pain, tingling and numbness.\nIn reviewing Dr. Dobozi\u2019s evaluations of plaintiff for the board over the years, Dr. Spencer testified that it was possible for plaintiff to have intermittent sciatic pain. Referring to the 1981 EMG, the doctor agreed that plaintiff showed nerve damage at the base of his spine and that the cause of the lesion was probably a disk herniation, which could cause pain during activities.\nDr. Spencer was also shown plaintiff\u2019s 1995 MRI. He stated that the MRI confirmed plaintiff\u2019s disk degeneration \"with a protrusion of disk herniation.\u201d In his opinion, plaintiff\u2019s 1980 trauma could have caused a disk herniation, which in turn could have caused the L4-L5 root lesion, but plaintiff was still fit for police work because his was not an unusual MRI scan for a 40-year-old man. Dr. Spencer also stated that disk herniations shrink and resorb in time, and a herniated disk does not stay symptomatic forever. He discounted plaintiff\u2019s complaints of pain and suggested that plaintiff\u2019s functional capacity indicated that he should have no trouble with any activity as long as it was not repetitive. Dr. Spencer stated that he essentially agreed with Dr. Dobozi, who ultimately determined that plaintiff could not perform heavy duty work. This was because Dr. Spencer believed that police work was not heavy duty and did not involve repetitive activities. He also opined that plaintiff\u2019s back condition was not so fragile that if he were involved in an altercation he would be any more likely to have a back injury than anyone else and that plaintiff could aggravate his back temporarily but that it would resolve without surgery.\nDr. Ryan testified during his May 1995 deposition that in his two examinations of plaintiff he could not find any objective evidence for plaintiff\u2019s back pain and that in his opinion plaintiff did not have a clinically permanent partial disability. He was unable to produce pain in plaintiff upon manipulation. In Dr. Ryan\u2019s opinion, plaintiff was at the third or end stage of spinal diagnosis. The first stage was dysfunction, where the spine was nearing degeneration and the individual experienced pain. The second state was instability with more severe pain because the spinal segment was unstable. The last stage brought stability and less sciatic pain. When Dr. Ryan saw plaintiff in 1993 and 1994, he believed that plaintiff had stabilized.\nDr. Ryan also examined plaintiff\u2019s 1995 MRI results and Dr. Dobozi\u2019s letter. The results did not change his opinion of plaintiff\u2019s status. The MRI showed a degenerated disk that had produced pain symptoms in the past, and an MRI showed disk degeneration better than a CAT scan. In evaluating Dr. Dobozi\u2019s report, Dr. Ryan stated that Dr. Dobozi did not provide enough documentation to verify his contention that plaintiff was permanently disabled. He also confirmed Dr. Spencer\u2019s opinion that sciatic pain was intermittent, but Dr. Ryan believed that police work was heavy work.\nAt the second hearing before the board on September 14, 1995, plaintiff testified that his former duties as a policeman had required him to bend and squat and that occasionally he became physically involved with suspects. He now was employed as a medical courier and spent approximately 20 hours per week in a car.\nThe board then issued its second decision. It stated that plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of proof, he was not disabled and there was no reason for the board to change its earlier decision. It certified him fit for duty, giving greater weight to the medical reports of Drs. Dwyer, Spencer and Ryan than to the report of Dr. Dobozi. The board also noted that the only time plaintiff saw Dr. Dobozi was when he needed a letter to submit to the board. Plaintiff\u2019s pension was revoked as of October 16, 1991, the date of the first decision. The circuit court affirmed the board\u2019s decision, stating that it could not reweigh the evidence. Plaintiff appealed.\nPlaintiff contends that the board\u2019s 1995 decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence. The findings and conclusions of the administrative agency on questions of fact are held to be prima facie true and correct, and such findings will be upheld on review unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Abrahamson v. Illinois Department of Professional Regulation, 153 Ill. 2d 76, 88 (1992). The board\u2019s decision should not be set aside by the reviewing court unless an opposite conclusion is clearly evident. Whelchel v. Edgar, 195 Ill. App. 3d 406, 409 (1990). The function of the reviewing court is not to reweigh the evidence but to determine whether the agency\u2019s decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Peterson v. Board of Trustees, Des Plaines Firemen\u2019s Pension Fund, 54 Ill. 2d 260, 262-63 (1973). An administrative decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence merely because an opposite conclusion is reasonable or because the reviewing court might have ruled differently. Collura v. Board of Police Commissioners, 135 Ill. App. 3d 827, 838 (1985).\nHere, the medical evidence was as follows:\nMarch 1990 \u2014 Dr. Dwyer found that plaintiff could return to light duty with occasional lifting up to 45 pounds.\nMay 1991 \u2014 Dr. Spencer found that plaintiff had no significant back problems and he concluded that plaintiff could return to police duties.\nOctober 1991 \u2014 Dr. Cheff reported that plaintiff had a nerve root lesion. His report was supported by a current EMG.\nFebruary 1993 \u2014 Dr. Dobozi confirmed that plaintiff\u2019s nerve root lesion was the same as in 1980. Plaintiff should not return to work. He relied on the 1991 EMG.\nFebruary 1993 \u2014 Dr. Spencer reaffirmed that his examination of plaintiff failed to reveal any abnormalities of the spine and plaintiff could return to police work.\nMay 1993 \u2014 Dr. Ryan noted that plaintiff appeared healthy, had no permanent disability and should be able to return to work.\nJanuary 1995 \u2014 Dr. Dobozi again noted plaintiff\u2019s persistent pain and stated that plaintiff should not return to police duties. This report was supported by current X rays.\nJuly 1994 \u2014 Dr. Spencer found that plaintiff\u2019s neurologie and orthopedic examinations were normal.\nJuly 1994 \u2014 Dr. Ryan found no objective evidence of pain and concluded that plaintiff could return to work.\nJune 1995 \u2014 Dr. Dobozi stated that plaintiff still complained of pain and suffered from a degenerative disk, and his injury was permanent. He relied on a recent MRI.\nOnly Dr. Dobozi concluded that plaintiff should not return to police work. Otherwise, the doctors agreed that plaintiff suffered from a nerve root lesion, which caused him sciatic and other pain. Drs. Spencer and Ryan both believed that plaintiff had \"stabilized,\u201d that his pain would come and go but that he could perform police work. Dr. Dobozi thought that police work was \"heavy work\u201d; Dr. Spencer thought it was light duty and that an altercation would not exacerbate his condition permanently. Under section 3\u2014116 of the Illinois Pension Code, if a police officer is found upon medical examination to have recovered from a disability, the board shall certify to the chief of police that the officer is no longer disabled. 40 ILCS 5/3\u2014116 (West 1994). We must conclude that the board\u2019s determination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and the circuit court did not err in affirming the board\u2019s decision.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nBUCKLEY and O\u2019BRIEN, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE GALLAGHER" } ], "attorneys": [ "Stanley H. Jakala, of Berwyn, for appellant.", "Richard J. Puchalski, of Sklodowski, Franklin, Puchalski & Reimer, of Chicago, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "KENNETH ANTONELLI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE HILLSIDE POLICE PENSION BOARD et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 1\u201496\u20141580\nOpinion filed March 31, 1997.\nStanley H. Jakala, of Berwyn, for appellant.\nRichard J. Puchalski, of Sklodowski, Franklin, Puchalski & Reimer, of Chicago, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0348-01", "first_page_order": 366, "last_page_order": 372 }