Failure to Weigh Medical Evidence Properly Results in Reversal of Pension Board Decision
In Calleros v. Calumet Firefighters Pension Fund, the appellate court reversed the decision of the Board and the circuit court and remanded with directions to grant Jesus Calleros a line-of-duty disability pension. This case involved a firefighter/paramedic with the Calumet City Fire Department who appealed the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Calumet City Firefighters Pension Fund denying him line-of-duty and non-duty disability pension benefits.
Calleros joined the Calumet City Fire Department on August 2, 2007, and had previously worked for other fire departments without reporting knee injuries. He reported left knee pain in 2011 and 2012, but diagnostic imaging showed no significant issues. On April 20, 2020, during a training exercise, Calleros injured his left knee, feeling a “pop” and experiencing “excruciating pain.” He was not cleared to return to work and began physical therapy. An MRI revealed a left knee medial meniscus tear, leading to surgery on May 8, 2020. Despite surgery and therapy, Calleros continued to experience limitations in mobility. A functional capacity assessment (FCA) concluded Calleros could only perform at a medium to heavy level of work, not the required very heavy level. The Board retained three independent medical evaluators: Dr. Hennessy, Dr. Shadid, and Dr. Gleason. Dr. Gleason found Calleros to be disabled due to a painful left knee with degenerative disease linked to the work injury, and precluding him from performing full firefighter duties. Dr. Shadid and Dr. Hennessy, however, concluded that Calleros was not disabled, noting that his complaints were out of proportion to objective findings and attributing his issues to preexisting conditions and obesity.
The Board denied both line of duty and non-duty disability pensions, giving greater weight to the opinions of Dr. Hennessy and Dr. Shadid over that of Dr. Gleason. The Board discounted Dr. Gleason’s opinion, citing reliance on the FCA that was not directly observed by him.
The Illinois Appellate Court found the Board’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence, as there was substantial medical evidence indicating Calleros was disabled. The Court noted that Dr. Gleason’s opinion, supported by the FCA and Calleros’ testimony, was more reliable than the opinions of Drs. Hennessy and Shadid, who failed to consider relevant evidence. Specifically, the Court concluded that Dr. Hennessy’s and Dr. Shadid’s opinions that Calleros’ injury was not permanent was inconsistent with the facts in the record, which showed that Calleros’ pain has not resolved at any time since the incident. Further, the Board erred in assigning greater weight to the opinions of Dr. Hennessy, and Dr. Shadid where Dr. Hennessy’s opinion was based in part on Calleros’ capabilities before his second surgery, and a misreading of the MRI, and Dr. Shadid’s conclusions were inconsistent with facts in the record. In summary, the Court found there was ample medical evidence supporting a finding of disability (persistent pain post-injury, a second MRI and surgery confirming an unhealed meniscus tear, a FCA showing Calleros could not meet the job demands, and supporting medical opinions of Dr. Gleason, and Calleros’ treating physician). The Court concluded the Board improperly discounted Dr. Gleason’s opinion and erroneously gave greater weight to outdated and incomplete opinions of Dr. Hennessy and Dr. Shadid which ignored later evidence.
The Court reversed and set aside the Board’s decision, and remanded the case with directions to grant Calleros a line-of-duty disability in accordance with section 4-110 of the Illinois Pension Code.
Calleros v. Calumet City Firefighters Pension Fund, Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, Decided April 18, 2025