Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Barringer v. Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund

Barringer v. Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund

Case Date: 09/29/2000
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-99-0933 Rel

                                                               FIFTH DIVISION
                                                           September 29, 2000

 

 

No. 1-99-0933


ROBERT BARRINGER,

                                   Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE FIREMEN'S
ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO,
JOSEPH F. QUINN, President of the
Retirement Board of the Firemen's
Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago,
WILLIAM J. WILKINSON, JAMES F. NOLAN,
Trustees of the Retirement  Board of the
Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of
Chicago, NORMAN S. HOLLAND, Secretary
of the Retirement Board of the
Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of
Chicago, City Comptroller, BARBARA
LUMPKIN, City Clerk, JAMES J. LASKI,
City Treasurer MIRIAM SANTOS, and
Deputy Fire Commissioner Vice President
JAMES T. JOYCE, Ex-Officio Trustees of
the Retirement Board of the Firemen's
Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago,

                                   Defendants-Appellees.

 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)		 Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
Cook County.


















Honorable
Michael B. Getty
Judge Presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE QUINN delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity andBenefit Fund of Chicago (Board) denied plaintiff Robert Barringer's application for occupational disease disabilitybenefits. The circuit court upheld the Board's decision. Onappeal, plaintiff contends that the Board's decision was againstthe manifest weight of the evidence.

The record reveals that on January 7, 1997, plaintiff, whowas employed as a paramedic with the Chicago fire department, washospitalized after suffering a stroke. Seven weeks later,plaintiff underwent surgery to close a hole in his heart. Hethereafter applied for occupational disease disability benefitspursuant to section 6-151.1 of the Illinois Pension Code (Code) (40 ILCS 5/6-151.1 (West 1996)). Plaintiff did not apply forordinary disability benefits. 40 ILCS 5/6-152 (West 1996).

At the hearing on his application for occupational diseasedisability benefits, plaintiff testified that the basis for hisclaim was that he had a stroke and a hole in his heart. Heexplained that he had open heart surgery to repair the hole andthat his doctors told him that the hole had caused his stroke.

The Board also heard testimony from Dr. George SalvatoreMotto, a physician-consultant for the Board, who based histestimony on a physical examination of plaintiff and a review ofplaintiff's medical records. Dr. Motto testified thatplaintiff's stroke was caused by a small blood clot that traveledthrough a congenital hole in plaintiff's heart and to his brain. The hole had been present in plaintiff's heart since birth. Acardiac catheterization documented the presence of the hole andan absence of coronary artery disease. After plaintiff recoveredfrom the stroke and had surgery to close the hole, a cardiologistdetermined that plaintiff had no symptoms of heart disease. Dr.Motto stated that plaintiff was able to return to duty withoutrestriction, and that the stroke was "absolutely not" caused byanything related to service with the Chicago fire department.

The Board had before it multiple exhibits, including severalmedical records. Among the exhibits were a letter from theChicago fire department's medical director, stating thatplaintiff is unable to return to paramedic duties; plaintiff's"lay-up summary," detailing his work history and reasons forabsences from work; a letter from an examining doctor statingthat plaintiff was "advised to return to work in the capacity towhich he will judge his own limits"; a letter from a cardiologistconcluding that, based on plaintiff's performance in a treadmillexercise test, plaintiff is "Functional Class I"; a letter fromplaintiff's neurologist relating that plaintiff was improvingdespite some residual numbness caused by the stroke; a pre-surgery letter from plaintiff's neurologist stating that he couldnot say with absolute certainty that the hole in plaintiff'sheart was the cause of his stroke; a cardiac catheterizationreport concluding that plaintiff's stroke was caused by the holein his heart and referring him for surgery to close the hole; anda letter from plaintiff's neurologist stating that the cause ofplaintiff's stroke was determined to be a blood clot due to thecongenital hole in his heart and concluding that plaintiff isdisabled from returning to his prior duties. Also among theexhibits was a letter from plaintiff's own physician, whichstated that plaintiff's stroke was due to the defect in his heartand that plaintiff is unable to return to work in his formercapacity.

The Board denied plaintiff's application, stating in aletter to plaintiff that it was denying his application forbenefits under section 6-151.1 because "there is not sufficientevidence to substantiate that you are disabled as set forth inthe Pension Code, Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 108