Appellate Court, 1st District,
Decided August 20, 2024
The plaintiff, a Chicago firefighter, filed an application for duty disability benefits. She
claimed she was injured during training while performing a “forcible entry evolution” with a
Halligan. The Halligan bar slipped, causing her to fall backward and hit her head and shoulder
on a concrete floor, leading to a brief loss of consciousness. She was subsequently diagnosed
with a concussion, post-concussion syndrome, right rotator cuff tendinitis, right rotator cuff tear
(requiring surgery on September 14, 2021), migraines, and other related conditions, including
memory loss, light sensitivity, vertigo, and reduced mobility in her right arm. She asserted these
injuries occurred while performing her duty as a firefighter.
The Pension Board ultimately denied her application, concluding the evidence supported
that her shoulder issues were primarily due to preexisting degenerative tears, not the fall during
the training incident. The plaintiff sought administrative review in circuit court, arguing that her
shoulder injury was caused by the February 2021 incident, not chronic degeneration. She also
claimed the Board failed to consider a prior 2006 shoulder injury that may have contributed to
her current condition. The Circuit Court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that the evidence
supported the conclusion that her injury was due to a preexisting degenerative condition.
Additionally, the court held that it could not consider the 2006 injury, as it was not raised before
the Board.
On Appeal, plaintiff contended that the Board overlooked evidence that her 2006
shoulder injury was the starting point of her degeneration. The plaintiff did not raise this
argument during the Board’s proceedings or present evidence that the 2006 injury contributed to
her current disability. The Court found it was the plaintiff’s responsibility to raise and support
this argument before the Board, not for the Board to investigate it independently. The Court
concluded the Pension Board’s decision was supported by the evidence and affirmed its denial of
duty disability benefits, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the 2006 injury contributed to
her current condition.