Fulfilling officers' needs should be the holy grail of the police pension board's mission
When COVID-19 struck the globe, the pandemic forced Chicago to dramatically curtail our way of life. As Chicago residents learned to cope with a daily existence transformed by the pandemic — orienting to draconian lockdowns, mask mandates, and school closures — countless city employees were obligated to continue with their duties.
While residents were forced to capitulate to the extreme measures imposed by Chicago’s health gurus, members of the Chicago Police Department and Chicago Fire Department had no choice but to work and accept the prospect contracting COVID was just another ordinary hazard of daily duties.
A terrible period to be on the streets, by the time Chicago emerged from the pandemic’s darkest days, 14 members of CFD and CPD were acknowledged to have succumbed to COVID in the line of duty. In each instance, the families of the 14 deceased were eligible for death benefits. Yet the fate of several CFD and CPD who prevailed but were debilitated by the virus became a source of controversy.
Of those officers and firefighters who did manage to overcome COVID, the predicament of Sergeant of Police Joaquin Mendoza was distinct. A 22-year veteran of CPD who had established an impeccable record as a peace officer, Mendoza’s case of COVID had taken such a toll he had to be rescued by CFD after he collapsed at his South Side apartment. Ravaged by the illness, Mendoza eventually spent 72 days in the hospital battling the virus and endured kidney failure, lost the use of his left arm, and suffered a series of strokes.
Only the beginning of a hellish nightmare, Mendoza’s condition left him unable to return to duty. With no alternatives available, Mendoza petitioned the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund for a disability pension, under which he would have received 75 percent of his annual salary accompanied by insurance benefits.
Though Mendoza’s infirmity appeared to make him a shoo-in for duty disability, the board, in a 4-3 vote, denied the disability pension in favor of a “ordinary disability,” through which he would be granted 50 percent of his salary, no health care, and benefits that would expire after five years. An odd ruling, the pension board’s decision arrived after both the federal government and the State of Illinois determining deaths and disabilities originating from exposure to COVID would be considered as line-of-duty deaths in order to facilitate the swift awarding of benefits to the disabled or their families.
Refusing to be written off unheard, Mendoza appealed the pension board’s decision, but the panel’s ruling was upheld by Cook County Circuit Judge Thaddeus Wilson. In a lurch, the court’s decision would have left Mendoza consigned to a life racked by financial and health predicaments if not for the intervention of his sister, Illinois Comptroller Susana Mendoza. Enraged at the pension board’s indifference and callousness to her brother’s plight, Ms. Mendoza took up a pilgrimage to enact change over the circumstances under which officers could be awarded a disability pension.
Taking up cudgels on behalf of her brother, Ms. Mendoza first engaged in a nasty public feud with then-Mayor Lori Lightfoot by leveling the accusation the 4-3 vote by the pension board was motivated entirely by politics and Lightfoot’s personal animus with Chicago Police. When exchanges with Ms. Lightfoot proved fruitless, Mendoza crashed through the walls of the capitol building in Springfield and eventually helped usher through The Act-of-Duty law, HB3162, which provided disability benefits of 75 percent of salary plus health insurance for any first responder unable to work after contracting COVID from March 9, 2020. Governor J.B. Pritzker signed the bill into law in May 2023.
While Ms. Mendoza deserves a round of applause for embarking on an effort to change the manner in which disability pensions are doled out to police officers or firefighters disabled by COVID, the method by which the pension board comes to its decisions over parceling out pensions has remained unchanged. A cursory look at this controversy would make it clear the pension board is in dire need of an entirely new formula to guide panel members over how pensions are issued.
Under city policy, an officer who suffers a grievous injury on duty is eligible to remain on medical leave for a term of 365 days. Once an officer on medical leave reaches day 365, they are compelled to accept non-pay status and released from employment from CPD. Though officers have secured impeccable health care, they are —inexplicably — unable to apply for a duty disability with the police pension fund only after placement on no-pay status. Despite remaining under the care of a physician for the term of medical leave, officers are compelled to undergo a further battery of medical examinations and evaluations by a physician hired by the pension board to qualify for duty disability. Under current policy, officers run the risk of losing pay while awaiting a judgment from the pension fund, leaving them to fend for themselves by relying on an ordinary disability benefit for periods extending up to six months without pay.
Complicating matters for officers seeking disability is the fact the pension board is mired in ethically unsettling relationships with wealth managers and investment firms, all of which are in constant conflict with one another to acquire control over millions of dollars in pension assets to invest. Nevertheless, for any change to occur for the benefit of officers deserving of duty disability, the starting point to serve their interests begins first with the pension board entering into discussions with city officials to amend existing policy to allow officers on medical roll to apply for duty disability six months prior to entering no-pay status.
Second, the practice of the pension board demanding an officer petitioning for disability to undergo countless medical examinations by board-approved physicians must come to an end. Too often, the physicians maintained by the board are more inclined to fulfill the interests —mainly political — of the pension board than furthering the interests of injured or disabled officers.
Third, limits should be placed on the board’s authority to require officers submit to periodic examinations. An arbitrary power the board wields, it tends to be capricious and thoughtless. In many instances, the extent of injury is obvious —dreadful even — yet some maimed officers are pressured to yield to the board’s whims. Officers receive exceptional medical coverage, and Chicago is host to some of the finest medical professionals and facilities in the world. The professional judgments rendered by an officer’s primary physician or specialist while on medical roll are sufficient when presenting justification for disability. Excessive examinations are superfluous and costly.
Finally, the State Pension Code which governs the operations of the Chicago Police Pension needs to be amended to set detailed, step-by-step instructions over how to rule on applications for duty disability. Under any new code, board members should consider clear and specific guidelines, previous disability cases before the panel, and a physician’s diagnosis following treatment and therapy. This revision to code would also include setting timelines for the review and award of duty disability pensions.
Policing is a hazardous profession, with the inherent and ever-present risk of physical injuries ranging from a simple abrasion to serious muscular-skeletal injuries or to life threatening injuries such as paralysis. Under the current system, officers suffering from life-altering injuries are subject to unnecessary and prolonged delays before being awarded duty disability. The City of Chicago owes officers who have sustained serious, career-ending injuries the right to receive disability in a fair and timely manner.
The architects of the pension board recognized the need to provide for officers — and their families — for those career-ending and life-altering injuries in the line of duty. The current system is too convoluted, unnecessarily protracted, too politicized, and too skewed to favor the City of Chicago and the pension fund. Chicago needs to honor the many who lose their career in the service of the city to give them the sense of security they deserve.
