Court rules for Northlake in police pension case

• Reprints

Updated: August 4, 2011 4:20PM

A decision to award an injured Northlake police officer a higher disability pension has been overturned by an appellate court ruling.

The Northlake Police Pension Board had denied a line-of-duty pension to former officer Earl Filskov, but awarded him a not-on-duty pension for an injury he sustained in October 2007.

Filskov disagreed with the board and filed a lawsuit with the Cook County Circuit Court. In October 2009, his attorney argued in court that the Pension Board’s interpretation is “totally unsupported by Illinois law.”

Judge Peter Flynn agreed with Filskov and reversed the Pension Board’s decision, requiring the higher pension.

The Pension Board appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois in November 2009. On April 5 of this year, three of the four Appellate Judges agreed to reverse the lower court’s ruling.

Filskov’s attorney filed a petition with the appellate court, asking it to rehear the case. The court denied the petition, with Judge Virginia Joy Cunningham dissenting.

Filskov’s injury took place on the night of Oct. 5, 2007. He was working on the department’s tactical squad, which focuses on narcotics and gang suppression.

According to court papers, at 10:30 p.m. Filskov and two other officers’ left the Northlake police station after having filled out paperwork connected with an arrest.

They walked to an unmarked police car. Filskov opened a rear door and found items on the seat. He bent to move them and felt the car start to move forward.

Filskov attempted to move out of the way, but felt one of the vehicle’s tires running over his left foot. He yelled for the driver to stop. He did — right on top of Filskov’s foot.

The incident caused tendon and nerve damage to his foot, leaving him unable to walk or run properly. The damage to his foot turned out to be permanent and after almost 20 years on the force, Filskov had to give up his badge.

Filskov applied for a disability pension. There are two types. One is a line-of-duty pension. If awarded, the former officer gets 65 percent of his former pay, pays no taxes and his health insurance is paid for.

The other is a not-on-duty pension. If awarded, the former officer gets 50 percent of his former pay, pays taxes on it and pays his own health insurance premiums.

Everyone agrees Filskov was a police officer, that he was injured and that the injury caused a disability that forced him to retire.

Three of the four appellate judges, however, wrote that, “Officer Filskov did not suffer a line of duty disability. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the circuit court, as Officer Filskov’s injury was not sustained while performing an act of duty as required under section 3-114.1(a) of the Illinois Pension Code.”

The difference in opinion appears to be how the term “act of duty” is defined. The majority quotes the Illinois Pension Code, which reads “any act of police inherently involving special risk, not ordinarily assumed by a citizen in the ordinary walks of life, imposed on a policeman.”

The majority goes on to cite previous cases. In one, an officer filling out paperwork at a station went to sit down, but missed the chair and was hurt. The majority wrote “The court ruled that did not involve a special risk not ordinarily assumed by a citizen in ordinary walks of life.”

Cunningham dissented with the majority, writing that, “Filskov and his partners were required to drive to specific locations in the city in accordance with gang suppression activities. In my view, that puts it squarely within the categories of injuries for his line of duty disabilities are payable.”

Cunningham continued, “It cannot be rationally argued that Filskov was getting into that particular police vehicle in that particular location, at that particular time, for personal reasons unrelated to his specific work as a team member (of gang suppression unit). Filskov was not taking a casual car ride with friends.”