Haley v. East Moline Firefighters Pension Fund

Denial of Line-of-Disability Affirmed By Appellate Court Where Pension Board Relied Upon Creditable Evidence in the Record

By: Thomas S. Radja Jr.

In a case handled by Thomas Radja Jr., the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the East Moline Firefighters’ Pension Board’s denial of a line-of-duty disability pension to Daniel Haley and affirmed the grant of a non-duty disability pension. The court reviewed the Board’s decision under the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard and found sufficient evidence supported the denial of duty disability benefits. In this case, Haley applied for disability pensions in 2018 and again in 2019, first alleging health issues related to occupational cancer and then later PTSD. He attributed PTSD in part to a January 2, 2016 breech-birth call involving an infant death. Two 2018 fitness-for-duty evaluations by Dr. Campion found Haley emotionally unfit for duty. The Board’s experts were split on causation: Dr. Harris opined non-service-related disability, Dr. Weine linked PTSD to the 2016 call, and Dr. Agarwal found preexisting PTSD aggravated by the 2016 call. Testing by a neuropsychologist, Dr. Goldstein, suggested significant distress with
possible symptom exaggeration.

At the disability hearing, a battalion chief testified that Haley stated he could continue to work as a firefighter and, if the fire department refused to release him to work, he would then file for a PTSD disability pension. The Pension Board found Haley
disabled but concluded the disability was not caused by an act of duty, emphasizing nonoccupational factors like his brother’s death, marital, financial, and legal issues were the basis for the disability. The Board gave greater weight to Dr. Harris’s opinion and, to a
degree, Dr. Campion’s fitness for duty evaluations. The Board found Haley not credible, noting he had failed to complain about the 2016 call as a stressor during treatment and instead emphasized personal stressors. The Board also found Haley’s PTSD claim was
motivated by financial gain and in response to the fire department finding he could not return to work.

In affirming the decision of the Pension Board, the Court held ample evidence supported the Board’s causation finding, including treatment records focusing on personal issues, in addition to Dr. Harris’s opinion. This case supports the concept that Boards may deny line-of-duty disability when evidence shows disability stems primarily from non-duty personal factors, even with acknowledged duty stressors. Contemporaneous treatment records that emphasize personal stressors and omit specific duty incidents can undercut line-of-duty causation. Conflicting expert opinions allow boards to credit the view best aligned with the total
record, including fitness evaluations and credibility assessments.