3rd Dist. Appellate Court – 10/30/24
This case involved Aaron Shirley, a former police sergeant, who sued the Clarendon Hills Police Pension Fund after being denied both line-of-duty and non-duty disability pensions. Shirley injured his right shoulder while restraining a minor on duty in 2019. Multiple doctors diagnosed him with a SLAP tear and recommended surgery as the best treatment. However, Shirley declined surgery, citing concerns over risks and personal anecdotes from colleagues.
Three independent medical examiners confirmed his disability but noted that surgery had a high success rate and minimal risks. The Board ruled that Shirley’s refusal to undergo surgery was unreasonable, concluding that his disability was not a direct result of his injury but rather his refusal of treatment. Consequently, the Board denied his pension claims. Shirley challenged this decision.
The Board found that the Plaintiff was not entitled to disability benefits because he unreasonably refused surgery that had a high probability of success. Multiple medical
evaluations concluded that surgery was necessary and had minimal risks, and the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence supporting his refusal.
The Appellate Court upheld the Board’s denial of both a line-of-duty and non-duty disability pension to the plaintiff. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on Mulack v.
Hickory Hills Police Pension Board, a case where an officer’s refusal of surgery was deemed reasonable because multiple physicians supported conservative treatment as a viable alternative. Here, the court found no evidence that conservative treatment was a reasonable alternative, as all medical opinions agreed that surgery was necessary. The Appellate Court affirmed the Board’s finding that plaintiff’s refusal of surgery was a superseding cause of his continued disability, meaning that his inability to return to work was due to his refusal, not the original injury itself. The Appellate Court cited to Luchesi v. Retirement Board, which allows benefits to be denied if a
claimant refuses treatment that would restore their ability to work. Since doctors agreed that surgery could have allowed the plaintiff to return to duty, the Board’s denial was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.