Reminder: Police Officers/Firefighters Held to Different Mental Health Disability Standards

By Meganne Trela

When it comes to psychological disability pensions, police officers and firefighters do not play by the same rules-and the reason comes down to how the Illinois Pension Code defines “act of duty” differently in Articles 3 and 4. Two cases illustrate the practical consequences of that distinction: Robbins v. Board of Trustees of the Carbondale Police Pension Fund, 177 Ill. 2d 533 (1997), and Prawdzik v. Board of Trustees of the Homer Township Fire Protection District Pension Fund, 2019 IL App (3d) 170024.

In Robbins, a police officer reassigned to patrol duty in 1988 experienced job-related stress, including criticism over reports and anxiety about younger, better-trained colleagues. He also witnessed a January 1, 1990, shotgun suicide while on a domestic call. After a 1992 suspension for mental unfitness, the officer submitted an application for both non-duty and line-of-duty pension benefits. The police pension board granted a non-duty disability pension but denied a line-of-duty pension. The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the pension board’s decision.

The question in Robbins was whether the officer’s mental disability “resulted from the performance of an act of duty” under Section 3-114.1 of the Illinois Pension Code. (40 ILCS 5/3-114.1) The court determined that the definition required a special risk unique to police work. With that, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the board’s denial of a line-of-duty pension was appropriate because the stress stemmed from generalized job performance anxiety, not a specific, identifiable act of police duty involving special risk. For police officers, the injury or psychological claims to prove a line-of-duty disability must be linked to a specific act of duty unique to police work rather than the general stressful nature of policing.

However, the same result would not have followed if the applicant was a firefighter.

In Prawdzik, a firefighter and Air National Guard combat medic developed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) and related conditions after service in Afghanistan, returned to duty in 2009, and experienced on duty triggers. On one occasion in 2014 the firefighter became unable to drive fire apparatus and his anxiety worsened after a fire truck lost power while traveling about 45 mph. The board awarded a non-duty pension benefit but denied line-of-duty benefits, finding his PTSD was caused by combat rather than acts of duty as a firefighter. The circuit court affirmed but the appellate court reversed and remanded with instructions to award a line-of-duty pension.

The court reasoned that under Section 4-110 of the Illinois Pension Code, a disability must be “incurred in or resulting from the performance of an act of duty or from the cumulative effects of acts of duty.” (40 ILCS 5/4-110.)

The appellate court determined that the 2014 incident was an act of duty that aggravated the firefighter’s preexisting PTSD/anxiety and causally contributed to his permanent disability, warranting a line-of-duty pension.

The court further reasoned that firefighters need only show that an act of duty was an aggravating or contributing factor to the disability. The court distinguished the case from Robbins by holding that the “special risk” standard did not apply because the definition of “act of duty” was different in Article 4.

Robbins and Prawdzik illustrate that mental health disability outcomes turn on the statutory definition of “act of duty.” Police applicants must tie psychological disability to a specific act that has a special risk unique to policing; however, firefighter applicants can establish eligibility where acts of duty aggravate preexisting conditions and causally contribute to the disability.

Therefore, it is critical not to hold firefighters and police officers to the same standard. As always, the record applicable to the benefit application impacts the outcome of a disability pension application. Thus, pension funds considering mental health disability cases must do their best to gather appropriate information from the employing department and assign the independent medical evaluations to medical providers capable of understanding and applying the appropriate “act of duty” definition.