Marconi v. Chicago Heights Police Pension

• Decision Date: 19 October 2006
• Docket Number: No. 101418.,101418.
• Citation: 225 Ill.2d 497,870 N.E.2d 273
• Parties: Anthony MARCONI, Appellee, v. The CHICAGO HEIGHTS POLICE PENSION BOARD et al., Appellants.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

870 N.E.2d 273

225 Ill.2d 497

Anthony MARCONI, Appellee, v. The CHICAGO HEIGHTS POLICE PENSION BOARD et al., Appellants.

No. 101418.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

October 19, 2006.

As Modified Upon Denial of Rehearing May 29, 2007.

Mathias W. Delort and Aaron G. Allen, of Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas, Lifton & Taylor, Ltd., Chicago, for appellants.

Jerome F. Marconi, Chicago, for appellee.

Roger Huebner, Springfield, for amicus curiae Illinois Municipal League.

Cary J. Collins and Joseph Crimmins, Hoffman Estates, for amicus curiae Illinois Public Pension Advisory Committee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff, Anthony Marconi, filed an application for a disability pension with defendant Chicago Heights Police Pension Board (Board). During the pendency of the Board's review of plaintiff's application for a disability pension, plaintiff filed suit in the circuit court of Cook County, requesting, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that the Board did not timely complete review of his application. While the declaratory action was pending in the circuit court, the Board issued a decision denying plaintiff a disability pension. Plaintiff thereafter filed an action for administrative review in the circuit court of Cook County. The circuit court ultimately confirmed the Board's decision on administrative review. Soon thereafter, the circuit court granted the Board summary judgment in the declaratory action. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in the declaratory action, reversed the circuit court's affirmance of the Board's decision to deny plaintiff a disability pension, and remanded this cause to the Board for further proceedings. 361 Ill.App.3d 1, 296 Ill.Dec. 954, 836 N.E.2d 705. In addition, the appellate court also declared section 3-115 of the Illinois Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/3-115 (West 2002)) unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff.

On appeal to this court, the Board challenges only the appellate court's reversal of the Board's denial of plaintiff's disability pension claim on administrative review, and the appellate court's holding that section 3-115 of the Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/3-115 (West 2002)) is unconstitutional as applied. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the appellate court with respect to plaintiff's administrative review action, and vacate that portion of the appellate court's opinion holding section 3-115 of the Pension Code unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff became a sworn member of the Chicago Heights police department (Department) on October 10, 1988, holding the rank of patrol officer. On February 8, 1996, plaintiff was sent by the Department to Dr. Carl Wahlstrom, the Department's own psychiatrist, to determine his fitness for duty. The Department referred plaintiff to Dr. Wahlstrom after plaintiff's colleagues had reported to the Department's then-chief of police, Carla Osantowski, that plaintiff had threatened to commit suicide. During plaintiff's session with Dr. Wahlstrom, plaintiff admitted that he had experienced thoughts of committing suicide and had expressed those thoughts to fellow officers. However, plaintiff told Dr. Wahlstrom that, at the time of the evaluation, he no longer felt suicidal. Dr. Wahlstrom concluded that plaintiff was fit to return to duty.

Plaintiff was again sent by Chief Osantowski to Dr. Wahlstrom for a fitness evaluation on July 24, 1996. Chief Osantowski questioned plaintiff's fitness for duty based upon incidents where plaintiff had exhibited hostility toward others. As part of the evaluation, Dr. Wahlstrom met with plaintiff for several sessions, and spoke with Chief Osantowski as well as plaintiff's longtime girlfriend, Sheila. Dr. Wahlstrom concluded that plaintiff was suffering from major depression and stress related to work and outside factors. Dr. Wahlstrom noted that these stressors included several on-the-job shooting incidents and an FBI investigation of the Department. Although Dr. Wahlstrom opined that plaintiff was fit to resume duty, this recommendation was contingent on plaintiff continuing in psychotherapy and taking prescribed psychotropic medications. Accordingly, the Department arranged for plaintiff to attend biweekly psychotherapy sessions with Dr. Wahlstrom. Plaintiff also began taking three prescription medications: trazodone, an antidepressant; Depakote, a mood-stabilizing medication; and clozapine, an antianxiety medication.

On September 9, 1996, Dr. Wahlstrom faxed a letter to Chief Osantowski informing her that plaintiff had made direct physical threats of bodily harm against her, including a statement that plaintiff wanted to "knock[ ] her out." Dr. Wahlstrom also warned Chief Osantowski that plaintiff was unable to exercise reasonable judgment where she was concerned, and that plaintiff stated he was "85% certain" that he would harm her "if he got within arms length of her." Dr. Wahlstrom diagnosed plaintiff with "major depression along with stress, related both to work and his outside life circumstances," and wrote that plaintiff's "perceptions relating to his work environment [were] deteriorating and unstable." Dr. Wahlstrom found plaintiff to be "disabled by this condition" and, accordingly, declared plaintiff to be unfit for duty. Dr. Wahlstrom further stated that he was "unable to determine the recovery period for [plaintiff's] condition at this time." Based upon Dr. Wahlstrom's report, Chief Osantowski ordered plaintiff to surrender his credentials. Plaintiff complied, and, at that time, he ceased to be on active duty status. For the next year, plaintiff was placed on disability leave and continued to receive his pay.

On April 22, 1997, plaintiff filed with the Board an application for duty-related disability pension benefits. In correspondence dated April 30, 1997, the Board acknowledged plaintiff's application and requested that plaintiff provide the Board with certain information, including medical documentation and a statement of plaintiff's injury. In addition, the letter stated that the Board would require plaintiff to be examined by three physicians selected by the Board in accordance with section 3-115 of the Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/3-115 (West 2002)), and that plaintiff would be notified by separate letter of the date, time and location of the examinations. The Board's letter further stated that "[o]nce these examinations are complete and the medical reports and Physician's Certificate of Disability are received, the Pension Board will schedule this matter for a hearing."

In a letter dated September 24, 1997, plaintiff's counsel responded that he had contacted plaintiff's treating psychiatrist, Dr. Wahlstrom, concerning the cause of plaintiff's disability. In addition, plaintiff's counsel wrote that it was his own "understanding" that "the multiple shootings [plaintiff] was involved in while on the job greatly contributed to his disability." Plaintiff's counsel also requested that "a hearing be held as soon as possible." On October 1, 1997, the Board's counsel wrote a letter to plaintiff's counsel, enclosed copies of plaintiff's personnel records, and stated that the Board could now schedule plaintiff to be examined by three physicians selected by the Board. However, counsel for the Board also stated that the personnel records did not show any shootings in which plaintiff was allegedly involved. Counsel for the Board therefore requested plaintiff's counsel to forward copies of any documentation regarding plaintiff's involvement with any shootings, as the Board's physicians would "undoubtedly want to review those documents as well." The Board's counsel concluded the correspondence by writing that "no hearing can be held until such time as the Pension Board is in receipt of the reports from its three psychiatrists."

Plaintiff provided the Board with all requested information by November 12, 1997. The Board then scheduled plaintiff to be examined by three psychiatrists and one psychologist, all selected by the Board in accordance with section 3-115 of the Pension Code. Plaintiff's psychiatric and psychological evaluations were conducted on June 30, 1998, July 6, 1998, July 7, 1998, November 20, 1998, and December 10, 1998.

On September 2, 1999, the Board held its first hearing on plaintiff's application. During this proceeding, plaintiff amended his disability application to alternatively request a non-duty-related disability pension in the event that the Board denied his request for a disability pension that was duty-related. In addition, during this proceeding the Board admitted various exhibits into evidence, including plaintiff's personnel records and the reports of the three psychiatrists and one psychologist selected by the Board to evaluate plaintiff's condition. Three of these four medical reports concluded that plaintiff was disabled. We briefly overview each of these reports seriatim.

Dr. Harley G. Rubens filed a physician's certificate dated June 30, 1998, stating that he had examined plaintiff and certified plaintiff to be disabled for service within the Department. This certificate accompanied a psychiatric evaluation report from Dr. Rubens, dated July 7, 1998. In the report, Dr. Rubens stated that he based his opinion upon a 1½ hour interview with plaintiff conducted on June 30, 1998, as well as upon the following additional information: a review of correspondence from Dr. Wahlstrom and Dr. Wahlstrom's progress notes; pertinent police reports from the Department; a list of incidents involving plaintiff; and correspondence from plaintiff's attorney.

According to Dr. Rubens' report, plaintiff stated that he was removed from active duty and referred to Dr. Wahlstrom for evaluation because the Department thought plaintiff "was a loaded gun." Plaintiff stated that during his nine years of active duty with the Department, he was shot at four times. In his report, Dr. Rubens provided details with respect to two...