Opinion
1-21-1317
12-01-2023
MICHAEL W. UNDERWOOD, JOSEPH M. VUICH, RAYMOND SCACCHITTI, ROBERT McNULTY, JOHN E. DORN, WILLIAM J. SELKE, JANIECE R. ARCHER, DENNIS MUSHOL, RICHARD AGUINAGA, JAMES SANDOW, CATHERINE A. SANDOW, MARIE JOHONSTON, and 337 NAMED PLAINTIFFS LISTED IN EXHIBIT 23 TO THE SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT,[*] Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation; TRUSTEES OF THE POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO; TRUSTEES OF THE FIREMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO; TRUSTEES OF THE MUNICIPA EMPLOYEES' ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO; and TRUSTEES OF THE LABORERS' AND RETIREMENT BOARD EMPLOYEES' ANNUNITY AND BENEIFT FUND OF CHICAGO, Defendants (The City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee).
Clinton A. Krislov and Kenneth T. Goldstein, of Krislov & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellants. Mary B. Richardson-Lowry, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago (Myriam Zreczny Kasper, Suzanne M. Loose, and Sara K. Hornstra, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 13 CH 17450 The Honorable Neil H. Cohen, Judge, presiding.
Clinton A. Krislov and Kenneth T. Goldstein, of Krislov & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellants.
Mary B. Richardson-Lowry, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago (Myriam Zreczny Kasper, Suzanne M. Loose, and Sara K. Hornstra, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellee.
PRESIDING JUSTICE ODEN JOHNSON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices C.A. Walker and Tailor concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
ODEN JOHNSON, PRESIDING JUSTICE
¶ 1 The City of Chicago (City), a defendant and the sole appellee in this appeal, filed a motion in the trial court seeking an order dismissing the case against it with prejudice. The trial court granted the City's motion on September 9, 2021. In its order, the trial court quoted Justice Mikva, who had written on behalf of a unanimous appellate court: "It is absolutely law of the case that the plaintiffs have no right to receive-and that neither the City nor the Funds have any obligation to provide-any additional monetary contributions or to guarantee affordable healthcare." Underwood v. City of Chicago, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 53 (Underwood III). Then-appellate court Justices Cunningham and Connors concurred.
¶ 2 On this appeal, the issue is whether the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiffs' claims against the City seeking additional money and guarantees of health care. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
¶ 3 BACKGROUND
¶ 4 I. The Parties
¶ 5 Plaintiffs' sixth amended complaint (complaint) is the most recent complaint filed in this action. It alleges that plaintiffs are 337 participants in one of the four pension funds named as defendants. In Underwood III, this court described plaintiffs as follows: "Plaintiffs in the present action are past or present City employees who alleged improper diminution of pension benefits under the Illinois Constitution, breach of contract, estoppel, impairment of contract, and denial of equal protection." Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 14.
¶ 6 Underwood III observed that the City, the sole defendant in the present appeal, is an entity that had "provided its retirees with fixed-rate healthcare subsidies funded by city taxes." Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 7. However, in 1987, "the City announced that it would stop providing the subsidies," and this was the start of the legal troubles that eventually led to the present suit. Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 9.
Plaintiffs represent in their brief to this court that litigation continues in the circuit court concerning claims against the funds. As described below in paragraph 26, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, in part, finding that the funds had a statutory obligation under the 1983 and 1985 amendments to contract with one or more carriers to provide group health insurance for all eligible annuitants. This issue is not before us on this appeal.
¶ 7 Regarding the four funds who are defendants but not appellees, this court has observed:
"The General Assembly created four pension funds for City employees in order to administer and carry out the provisions of the Illinois Pension Code: (1) the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund (Police Fund), (2) the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund (Fire Fund), (3) the Municipal Employees' Annuity and Benefit Fund (Municipal Fund), and (4) the Laborers' and Retirement Board Employees' Annuity and Benefit Fund (Laborers' Fund) (collectively, Funds)." Underwood v. City of Chicago, 2016 IL App (1st) 153613, ¶ 3 (Underwood I).
The taxpayers of the City finance the funds' obligations "through a tax levy." Underwood I, 2016 IL App (1st) 153613, ¶ 3. According to appellants, litigation continues in the trial court over claims against the four funds.
¶ 8 II. The 1983 and 1985 Subsidies
¶ 9 In 1983, the City agreed to provide fixed-rate health care subsidies to retired Chicago police officers and firefighters. Subsequently, the Illinois Pension Code was amended to include these subsidies. Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 7 (citing Pub. Act 821044, § 1 (eff Jan. 12, 1983) (adding Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 108½, ¶ 6-164.2)).
¶ 10 In 1985, the Pension Code was further amended to include subsidies to retired municipal employees, laborers, and retirement board employees. Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 7.
¶ 11 The 1983 and 1985 "legislation contemplated that each of the funds established for these employees"-namely, the four funds named as defendants here-"would contract with an insurance carrier to provide a healthcare plan for its retirees." Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 7. The funds would then "use the monthly subsidies provided by the City toward the premiums for such coverage." Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 7. If the premiums cost more than the subsidies, "the excess was to be deducted from a retiree's monthly annuity," unless the retiree renounced the coverage. Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 7.
¶ 12 III. The Korshak Litigation
¶ 13 When the City announced in 1987 that it was going to stop paying these subsidies on January 1, 1988, it also filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not have to pay them, which became known as the "Korshak Litigation." Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 9.
¶ 14 Before the merits of the Korshak litigation were decided, however, the City and the funds reached a settlement. This settlement was not a permanent solution but merely an interim measure, designed to give the parties more time to reach a more lasting solution. However, if they failed to reach such a solution at the end of 10 years, the settlement returned the parties to the same legal status that they had had on October 19, 1987, when the litigation began. Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 10.
¶ 15 Effective August 23, 1989, the Pension Code was amended, to include the terms of this first interim settlement, including a 10-year limit. In 1997, before the time limit in the first interim agreement expired, the parties reached a second interim agreement, which was set to expire on June 30, 2003. On April 4, 2003, the parties reached a final settlement. Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶¶ 10-12.
¶ 16 IV. The Underwood Litigation
¶ 17 On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a new action against the City and the four funds, which is the present Underwood litigation. Underwood I, 2016 IL App (1st) 153613, ¶ 12.
¶ 18 Regarding the Underwood litigation, this court has observed that plaintiffs can be divided into "four subclasses: (1) those who retired before December 31, 1987 ***, (2) those who retired between January 1, 1988, and August 23, 1989 ***, (3) those who retired on or after August 23, 1989 ***, and (4) those who were hired after August 23, 1989." Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 14. The claims of the first and second subclasses are "essentially moot as the parties have settled." Underwood v. City of Chicago, 2017 IL App (1st) 162356, ¶ 46 (Underwood II).
¶ 19 With respect to the third and fourth subclasses, the significance of the date of August 23, 1989, is that this was the date on which the Pension Code was effectively amended to include the terms of the first interim agreement. See Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 10.
¶ 20 This court has previously found that plaintiffs cannot "state a claim for benefits based on the 1987, 1997, or 2003 amendments to the Pension Code because the settlements giving rise to those amendments were stopgap measures providing only time-limited benefits." See Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶¶ 15-16 (describing a prior trial court ruling that was affirmed in Underwood II); see also Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 46 ("In Underwood II, this court agreed with the circuit court that plaintiffs could not state a claim for coverage under the time-limited benefits provided for in the 1989, 1997, and 2003 settlements."). This court has found that the 1983 and 1985 amendments to the Pension Code contained no time limits and that they "protected the right to a fixed-rate subsidy" but "not a particular quantum of buying power or level of healthcare services." Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶¶ 15-16. The right to subsidies extended to those in the third subclass, as well as to those in the fourth subclass "who began participating before the 2003 settlement." Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 16.
¶ 21 V. Underwood II and III
¶ 22 In Underwood II, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, estoppel, impairment of contract, equal protection and violation of the special legislation clause (Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, § 13), leaving only issues under the pension clause (Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, § 5).
¶ 23 In Underwood III, which was the last time this suit was before the appellate court, we remanded the case back to the trial court so that the trial court could consider, in the first instance, "[w]hether the pension protection clause binds the [f]unds to create or approve a healthcare plan and administer it for the retirees' benefit." Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 50. As we noted above, litigation with respect to the funds is continuing and is separate and apart from this appeal, which concerns the City only.
¶ 24 In Underwood III, we answered the two certified questions as follows:
"(1) plaintiffs' motion to compel each of the [f]unds to provide its annuitants with a healthcare plan was not barred by this court's [prior] decision *** and (2) the eligibility cutoff for City employees entitled to receive the fixed-rate subsidies is June 30, 2003, the last day before the terms of the court-approved 2003 settlement were incorporated by legislative amendment into the Pension Code." Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 62.
¶ 25 VI. This Appeal
¶ 26 On remand, the trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, in part, finding that the funds had a statutory obligation under the 1983 and 1985 amendments to contract with one or more carriers to provide group health insurance for all eligible annuitants.
This was the question that we indicated in Underwood II that the trial court should address "in the first instance." Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 53.
¶ 27 However, the trial court further found that this obligation did not require the funds to pay subsidies in excess of those provided for in the 1983 and 1985 amendments for any group health insurance or group health plan. As noted above, these issues are not before us on this appeal.
¶ 28 The City moved for an order dismissing the claims against it. In an order granting summary judgment in favor of the City, the trial court quoted the "law of the case" language from Justice Mikva's opinion that we quoted in our first paragraph above. Supra ¶ 1. The trial court then found:
"it is now the law of the case that the only obligation the City has to the annuitants is to levy a tax sufficient to cover the subsidies provided for in the 1983 and 1985 amendments and then transfer the collected monies to the [f]unds. Plaintiffs do not
allege, and do not contend, that the City has failed to levy the required tax or transfer the collected monies to the [f]unds."
The trial court further found that, since the City's sole obligation to the annuitants is to levy the required tax and transfer the monies to the funds, and since there was no allegation that the City was failing in this obligation, the trial court granted summary judgment for the City on September 9, 2021. The trial court also observed that it had previously denied plaintiffs' motion to file a seventh amended complaint. On October 8, 2021, a notice of appeal was filed in the circuit court, and after requests for extensions of time, this case became ready for our consideration.
¶ 29 ANALYSIS
¶ 30 On this appeal, plaintiffs challenge both the trial court's denial of their motion to file a seventh amended complaint and the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 31 I. Motion to File Another Complaint
¶ 32 Plaintiffs' proposed seventh amended complaint would be their eighth complaint, if permitted, and plaintiffs argue that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing them to file it. An abuse of discretion occurs when no reasonable person could take the view that the trial court took. Meier v. Ryan, 2023 IL App (1st) 211674, ¶ 8. In addition, a trial court's decision to deny leave to file an amended complaint will not be disturbed on review absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Insurance Benefit Group, Inc. v. Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Co., 2017 IL App (1st) 162808, ¶ 50.
¶ 33 The most important consideration is whether amendment would further the interests of justice. Insurance Benefit, 2017 IL App (1st) 162808, ¶ 51. Factors to consider include the timeliness of the proposed amendment and whether plaintiffs had prior opportunities to amend. Insurance Benefit, 2017 IL App (1st) 162808, ¶ 51. In Insurance Benefit, for example, the appellate court stated that it could find no abuse where the "parties had already been litigating the matter for nearly five years" and where the facts underlying the causes of action had been known since the inception of the lawsuit. Insurance Benefit, 2017 IL App (1st) 162808, ¶ 53. In the case at bar, plaintiffs have been litigating for over 10 years, they have received permission six times before to file an amended complaint, and the basic facts underlying this suit have been known to them since their suit's inception over a decade ago. Under these facts, any reviewing court would be hard pressed to find abuse. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying their motion to amend.
¶ 34 II. Summary Judgment
¶ 35 Plaintiffs appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City. Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact, thereby entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Infrastructure Engineering, Inc., 2023 IL App (1st) 230147, ¶ 17; 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2022). Summary judgment may be an expeditious manner of disposing of a lawsuit, but it should be utilized only when the movant's right to judgment is clear and free from doubt. Zurich, 2023 IL App (1st) 230147, ¶ 17. On appeal, a reviewing court considers de novo a trial court's decision to grant summary judgment. Zurich, 2023 IL App (1st) 230147, ¶ 17.
¶ 36 On this appeal, plaintiffs limit their arguments to dismissal of their (1) contract and (2) estoppel claims. Thus, the dismissal of their statutory and constitutional claims, which they had made pursuant to the pension clause and the pension code, are not at issue.
¶ 37 With respect to contract, they argue that the funds had a contract with the City as the insurer which plaintiffs can sue to enforce. With respect to estoppel, they argue that representatives of the City repeatedly told plaintiffs at benefit seminars that they had lifetime health care guarantees. Based on these claims, plaintiffs seek lifetime health care from the City.
¶ 38 The bottom line here is that plaintiffs continue to seek money and health care guarantees from the City, when this court has already found that they have "no right to receive" them from either the City or the four funds. Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 53. This court found: "It is absolutely law of the case that the plaintiffs have no right to receive- and that neither the City nor the Funds have any obligation to provide-any additional monetary contributions or to guarantee affordable healthcare." Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 53. The words "absolutely" and "no right" are unusually strong, definitive, and unequivocal. See Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 53. Based on this strong and unequivocal finding by a fellow panel in this same case, we can find no error in the trial court's grant of summary judgment here. In light of our affirmance of summary judgment, there is no need to consider whether a class action should have been certified against the City.
Plaintiffs in their initial brief to this court criticized the trial court for treating Justice Simon's decision in Underwood II as law of the case while failing to address the much stronger language to that effect in Underwood III-that the trial court had quoted in its summary judgment order. Plaintiffs' initial brief cites Underwood III twice: once to note that the trial court was reversed in part and once to note that the Underwood III court was "wary of applying law of the case to bar matters not actually decided on their merits."
¶ 39 CONCLUSION
¶ 40 As citizens, we are grateful for plaintiffs' service and empathize with plaintiffs' desire for affordable health care, on the one hand, and on the other hand, we understand the City's struggle to keep costs down in an era of declining population. However, the matter before us is a strictly legal one where the issues have already been decided by prior panels. To the extent that a different outcome is warranted, that is a matter for a higher court or the legislature. For the reasons already explained above, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City.
¶ 41 Affirmed.
¶ 42 APPENDIX
1 Last Name First Name 42 Carroll Paul B. 43 Cervenka Richard G. 2 Abbey Leon 44 Chengary Alan 3 Alangi Rosemarie 45 Clancy Patrick M. 4 Anderson Donald G. 46 Clark Jeanne 5 Anderson Michelle 47 Clarke James R. 6 Andler Robert 48 Clarke Patricia S. 7 Andruzzi Joseph J. 49 Clepp Kathy 8 Angelo 'Thomas 50 Clisham Sr. John E. 9 Antol Robert P. 51 Cole Jon 10 Augustine Lawrence 52 Conlisk lit James B. 11 Azara John T. 53 Conrad Susan M. 12 Azzaro Donald J. 54 Conrad Walter A. 13 Baker Madelyn 55 Considine Joseph E. 14 Banahan Dennis M. 56 Conway Carol J. 15 Barreto Nelson 57 Conwell Hugh 16 Battistetla irene C. 58 Corcoran John E. 17 Battistella John 59 Cowell Raymond M.’ 18 Bellavla Ronald J. 60 Coyne Michael J. 19 Berman Barry 61 Cronk Virigina M. 20 Blake Marion 62 Cunningham James J. 21 Blanc Curtis E, 63 Dalton Tom 22 Blanc Karen A. 64 Dartihel William 23 Bobko John R. 65 Danz! Joseph M. 24 Bol da Dennis J. 66 Davis William B. 25 Bonk James R. 67 DeCola Salvatore L. 26 Bonke Fred 68 DeFrancisco Peter J. 27 Borski Anthony E. 69 DeFranza Donald 28 Botwinski JoAnne 70 DeGiulio William 29 Boyle Leslie 71 DeGryse James J. 30 Breska Victor J. 72 DeVivo Rosalie 31 Brockman Ellwood W. 73 Dicks Kenneth 32 Brosnan Patrick 74 Dickson Robert M. 33 Cagney Edward C, 75 Dorich Gerald 34 Caliendo June G. 76 Dragon Dennis 35 Camden Patrick T 77 Drnek Donald 36 Campion William E. 78 Droba Gerard 37 Canchola Donna J. 79 Drummond Richard L. 38 Canchola Robert A. 80 Drust Wayne W. 39 Ca pesius Michael C. 81 Dubielak Ronald 40 Carlo Patricia 41 Carr Elaine 13 82 Dunn Terrence L. 122 Green Mary 83 Dunn Sr.. Lawrence J. 123 Gunneii Donald L. 84 Durbak Andres 124 Gutierrez George 85 Dyck man Barbara 125 Gvozdenovich Anthony 86 Dyckman Louis 126 Hagele Marvin 87 Dziedzic Dennis 127 Hammermeister JoAnne Connelly 88 Egan William G. 128 Hammermeister Raymond R 89 Eichler Thomas 129 Harper Juana J. 90 Eldridge James 130 Harrington Patrick J. 91 Engelsman Richard 131 Hartford Joseph B. 92 EshOO John C. 132 Hatzet Joseph 93 Evanish Francis 133 Healy John 94 Everett Danie! 134 Healy Lawrence 95 Faragoi Thomas V. 135 Heidemann Fred G. 96 Farrer Gerald L 136 Heyden Fran H. 97 Faust Robert 137 Hopkins James T. 98 Ferrlter John T. 138 Horkavy Gregory L. 99 Eicke Thomas R. 139 Horne Ross 100 Fields Robert M. 140 Hourihane Michael 101 Finlayson Donna M. 141 Hujar Richard A. 102 Finlayson James R. 142 Ippolito Joseph C. 103 Flanagan, Jr. Thomas J. 143 Ippolito Patricia 104 Flynn Michael C. 144 Ivanjack Anthony J. 105 Foley Janice 145 Januszyk Donald 106 Foran John K. 146 Jazdyk Raymond 107 Frank Albert M, 147 Jin Tony H. 108 Frederick Arthur G. 148 Johnson Harold F. 109 Frost Barbara C. 149 Julien Patricia Lou 110 Fruin James E. 150 Kann Vivian J. 111 Glowadd Christine 151 Karl Joyce L. 112 Glynn-Johnson Mary 152 Keane Carole L 113 Gneda Diane 153 Kehoe James G. 114 Gogliottl Antoinette 154 Keller, Jr, Frank J. 115 Golczak Anthony 155 Kelly Francis 116 Golon William J. 156 Kern George "Steve” 117 Golosinski Casimer L. 157 King Richard 118 Gorski Steven H. 158 King Walter 119 Gottfried Alan J. 159 Klauba Bennet 120 Gould David R. 160 Kleidon, Jr. Walter A, 121 Gray Curtis 161 Kliner Donald C. 14 162 Kliner Helen 202 Milazzo-Triggs Catherine 163 Klodnicki John H, 203 Miller James 164 Knight Evelyn F. 204 Miller John F. 165 Kobel Richard 205 Minich John 166 Kacur Thomas M. 206 Mitkal Victor 167 Kopbenhoefer Charles 207 Montedore Ronald P 168 Kasteris Dimitrios 208 Morgan Charles E. 169 Kotowicz James F. 209 Morgan, Jr. Walter J. 170 Kouchoukos Andrew F. 210 Morley Christine 171 Kozaritz John A. 211 Morse Robert C. 172 Krupowicz Kenneth G. 212 Mostacchio Santo V. 173 Kwiatkowski Robert P. 213 Mueller Joan 174 Lam bros Kathleen 214 Munoz Luis 175 Lampard Marilyn C. 215 Murphy Marie Irene 176 Leracz Edmond 216 Murray Michael M. 177 Loftus James R. 217 Nagle Jeffery Jon 178 Logan Patrick 218 Nakaguchi Ann M. 179 Lorenz John G. 219 Nauer Donald B. 180 Lotito James M. 220 Nieckula Cynthia 181 Lucchesi James 221 Nork Charles 182 Maderak Terry 222 Nyhan Thomas P. 183 Madigan Raymond 223 O'Connor Margaret 184 Madsen Theodore J. 224 Ogarek Joseph 185 Majeske Albert Ri, 225 Olivieri Edwin 186 Majeske Carol 226 O'Malley Francis 187 Makowski Karen A. 227 Onesto Philip 188 Maley Muriel M. 228 O'Reilly Bernard 189 Manning Jennifer 229 O'Rourke James A, 190 Maratta Kathleen 230 Oskielunas Adam B. 191 Mares Achilles 231 Ott Roy J. 192 Martin Patrick 232 Padar James R. 193 Massi John S. 233 Palmer Ronald A. 194 McCann Kenneth J, 234 Paolello James 195 McCarthy George 235 Paoletti Grayceanne 196 McFadden Robert J. 236 Paoletti James M. 197 McGivney John M. 237 198 McQuaid Michael J. 238 Parizanski Paul 199 Midona Barbara A. 239 Patt Corinne 200 Midonaj Sr. Joseph A. 240 Paulnitsky Roland 201 Milam Mary J. 241 Pemberton Patrick M. 15 242 Peron Robert J. 282 Sebastian, Jr. Roy D. 243 Perovkh Vladimir 283 Seils Richard C. 244 Pizzo Angeline 284 Seike Jerome C. 245 Poedtke Ronald 285 Seyfert Eugene H. 246 Poholik Peter F. 286 Seyfert Judith A. 247 Poferecky Robert E. 287 Shuman Bernard 248 Pontrelli Darlene 288 Signoretti J. Robert 249 Ptak Theodore 289 Sloma Raymond T. 250 Quinn Robert F. 290 Smith Charles J. 251 Quinn Sylvia A. 291 Smith Deborah K. 252 Ratledge Robert D. 292 Sobczyk Jane 253 Reiter Mark 293 Sowinski Ronald 254 Retzke Gery 294 Specht Robert 255 Reynolds Thomas A. 295 Spedale Dominic 256 Rhoden Dawn 296 Spratt Doris 257 Rhoden Ralph 297 Stampnick Raymond L. 258 Rieck Judith 298 Staszak Norbert 259 Rimkus Stanley 299 Steinmeier Arthur M. 260 Rinr Victor 300 Strazzante Charles M. 261 Riordan Ann 301 Suess Robert 262 Rodgers Audrey 302 Sullivan Michael T. 263 Rohloff Richard P. 303 Sutor Yvonne 264 Rooney Sr. Patrick F 304 Swiatkowski Daniel 265 Ros ci ch Anthony M. 305 Szparkowski Debra 266 Ross Kenneth C. 306 Szparkowski Gary 267 Rowan Karen 307 Tapkowski Roman 268 Rowan Michael 308 Terrance Timothy J. 269 Rowan Richard 309 Thulis John 270 Ruback Charles R. 310 Tobuch Lawrence J. 271 Rumsfeld Alma 311 Tolley John F. 272 Ryan David 312 Tomaska Joseph A. 273 Sappanos Thomas 313 Tracey Robert J. 274 Sarnowski Ret. Sgt. Robert W. 314 Troken Eugene B. 275 Sasso Kathryn 315 Utz Charles A. 276 Scalise Anthony J. 316 Utz James J. 277 Schrager Daniel V. 317 Vitaioli Kathleen 278 Schreiner Angela M. 318 Vitaioli Paul 279 Schultz Marshall A. 319 Vogt Vince 280 Schwab John 320 Vucko Ralph E. 281 Schwartz Gerald 321 Wagner Patricia M. 16 322 Webb James E. 323 Webb Laura M. 324 Weber Matthew E. 325 Weiner Ben 326 Weininski Anthony 327 Whalen Thomas Michael 328 White Glenn L. 329 White Ralph 330 Wiberg Wayne A. 331 Winter Joyce A. 332 Wolanski John 333 Wolfe Joseph 334 Woody Lorraine 335 Yablong Phil H. 336 Young Phillip P. 337 Zoina Gifford A. 338 Zurawik James E. 339 Zurawski James J.
[*] See the appendix to this opinion for a list of the 337 named plaintiffs listed in exhibit 23 to the sixth amended complaint.