Find Legal Information

FIRST DIVISION
September 19, 2005

Nos. 1-04-1725 & 1-04-2390 cons.

This consolidated appeal stems from an application for a disability pension that plaintiffAnthony Marconi, a police officer, filed with defendant Chicago Heights Police Pension Board(the Pension Board). During the pendency of the Pension Board's review of his application,Marconi brought an action for declaratory judgment, mandamus and other relief (the declaratoryaction), alleging that the Pension Board did not complete its review of his application in a timelymanner. While the declaratory action was pending before the circuit court, the Pension Boardrendered its final decision denying Marconi a disability pension. Marconi sought administrativereview. The circuit court affirmed the Pension Board's decision to deny Marconi a disabilitypension. Shortly thereafter, the circuit court granted summary judgment in the declaratory actionin favor of the Pension Board.

The administrative review portion of this appeal is chiefly concerned with whether thePension Board erred in denying Marconi's application for a disability pension, given the evidencepresented. However, as shall be discussed more fully below, a decision to reverse the PensionBoard's determination on that ground would further implicate the constitutionality of section 3-115 of the Illinois Pension Code (the Pension Code) (40 ILCS 5/3-115 (West 2002)), which on itsface would support the denial of a disability pension on a "precertification" ground--namely, thatthe three doctors chosen by the Pension Board did not unanimously certify Marconi as disabled.

For the reasons that follow, we reverse the affirmance of the Pension Board's decision todeny Marconi a disability pension and remand the matter to the Pension Board for furtherproceedings consistent with this opinion; however, we affirm the grant of summary judgment inthe declaratory action.

BACKGROUND

I. Procedural History

On April 22, 1997, Marconi⁽¹⁾ wrote to the Pension Board, notifying it of his formal requestfor a duty-related disability pension. Marconi also asked the Pension Board to inform him if aformal application needed to be submitted.

In a letter dated April 30, 1997, the Pension Board acknowledged the receipt of Marconi'sletter and treated it as an application for disability pension benefits. The Pension Board requestedthat Marconi submit a written statement detailing his illness or injury, together with supportingdocumentation. The Pension Board also informed Marconi that he was required to be examinedby three physicians selected by it, and he would be notified of the date, time and location of thoseexaminations. The Pension Board would schedule the matter for a hearing after the completion ofall examinations and the receipt of the medical reports.

In a letter dated September 24, 1997, Marconi stated that he was involved in multipleshootings while on the job, and those incidents greatly contributed to his disability. Marconifurther stated that it was the police department's own psychiatrist, Dr. Carl Wahlstrom, whorecommended that he not return to work as a police officer, and that he was still receivingpsychiatric care from Dr. Wahlstrom. Lastly, Marconi requested a prompt hearing because histemporary disability benefits had run out and he was no longer receiving a paycheck. Subsequently, in a letter dated November 12, 1997, Marconi provided the Pension Board with theinformation that would help it locate the police reports of the shooting incidents he referred to inhis earlier correspondence.

Marconi's psychiatric and psychological evaluations scheduled by the Pension Board wereconducted on June 30, 1998; July 6, 1998; July 7, 1998; November 20, 1998; and December 10,1998.

The Pension Board did not hold its first hearing on Marconi's application until September2, 1999. The Pension Board admitted certain exhibits into evidence so that they could bereviewed by its members prior to the next hearing and adjourned. These exhibits includedpertinent personnel records and the reports of the two psychiatrists and one psychologist selectedby the Pension Board who evaluated Marconi's condition. The next hearing was scheduled forOctober 4, 1999.

The next time the Pension Board reconvened was on June 11, 2001. It heard Marconi'stestimony and admitted into evidence Dr. Wahlstrom's deposition. The Pension Board thenadjourned. As is noted below, it did not reconvene for another year.

On March 1, 2002, Marconi filed the declaratory action. Marconi asserted that he hadwaited almost five years for the decision on his application for pension benefits. In count I of hiscomplaint, captioned "Due Process--Section 1983 [(42 U.S.C.