Village of Stickney v. Board of Trustees

20 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. Board of Trustees

    398 Ill. App. 3d 680 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 18 times

    This court has, however, addressed a municipality's right to intervene in a disability hearing under Article 3 of the Pension Code and held that the board had the "power to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to allow a party to intervene." Village of Stickney v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, 347 Ill. App. 3d 845, 851 (2004). A board must exercise its discretion with care.

  2. Williams v. Board of Trustees

    No. 1-08-1212 (Ill. App. Ct. Dec. 22, 2009)

    This court has, however, addressed a municipality's right to intervene in a disability hearing under Article 3 of the Pension Code and held that the board had the "power to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to allow a party to intervene." Village of Stickney v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, 347 Ill. App. 3d 845, 851, 807 N.E.2d 1078, 1083 (2004). A board must exercise its discretion with care.

  3. Vill. of Alsip v. Portincaso

    2017 Ill. App. 153167 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 10 times

    ¶ 11 Our review of the Pension Board's decision is governed by the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2014)). 40 ILCS 5/3-148 (West 2014) ; Village of Stickney v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund , 347 Ill.App.3d 845, 848, 283 Ill.Dec. 237, 807 N.E.2d 1078 (2004). On appeals from administrative review proceedings, this Court reviews the decision of the administrative agency, not of the circuit court. Illinois Health Maintenance Organization Guaranty Ass'n v. Department of Insurance , 372 Ill.App.3d 24, 31, 309 Ill.Dec. 557, 864 N.E.2d 798 (2007) ; see also Wade v. City of North ChicagoPolice Pension Board , 226 Ill.2d 485, 504, 315 Ill.Dec. 772, 877 N.E.2d 1101 (2007).

  4. In re Surviving Spouse App. of Gruenes

    No. 2-06-0532 (Ill. App. Ct. May. 24, 2007)

    Petitioner argues that she is entitled to a new hearing on her petition because "[t]he Village did not have a right to intervene in pension hearings before the Board." Petitioner relies upon Village of Stickney v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund of the Village of Stickney, 347 Ill. App. 3d 845, 854 (2004) ( Stickney I), in which the Appellate Court, First District, held that a village does not have the statutory right to intervene in a police pension board's proceedings. However, that court further held that the board in that case had "the power to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to allow a party to intervene."

  5. Vill. of Vernon Hills v. Vernon Hills Police Pension Fund

    2017 Ill. App. 2d 160308 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    Pension boards were statutorily empowered to verify an applicant's disability and right to receive benefits, and the Board was ultimately responsible for administering the Fund and designating beneficiaries. It had the fiduciary duty to make findings of fact, properly administer the pension plan, ensure the validity of claims, and assess an applicant's credibility. The Board had discretion and did not arbitrarily or capriciously deny the Village's petition to intervene to perform these same functions. Additionally, unlike a judicial proceeding, an administrative proceeding was designed to ascertain and make findings of fact, and the Village's desire to turn it into an adversarial process contradicted the function of the pension board hearing. ¶ 32 The trial court stated that the Village further argued that the discretionary standard for allowing intervention set forth in Williams and Stickney v. Board of Trustees, 347 Ill. App. 3d 845 (2004), no longer applied following Village of Vernon Hills v. Heelan, 2015 IL 118170, and that due process required that it be allowed to intervene. The argument was taken from the dissent in the appellate court's ruling in Village of Vernon Hills v. Heelan, 2014 IL App (2d) 130823, but the supreme court referred to the dissent without choosing to follow it.

  6. Thomas v. Ill. Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Regulation

    2017 Ill. App. 161660 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    "An administrative agency abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or capriciously." Village of Stickney v. Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of Village of Stickney, 347 Ill. App. 3d 845, 852 (2004).¶41 Plaintiff argues the ALJ prematurely terminated his cross-examination of Dr. Zachariah where he was only allowed to ask Dr. Zachariah about plaintiff's actions in 17 of J.M.'s 47 office visits.

  7. Village of Stickney v. Board of Trustees

    363 Ill. App. 3d 58 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 6 times

    In a previous decision, we held the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the Village's request to participate in the hearing as a "party in interest." Village of Stickney v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, 347 Ill. App. 3d 845, 854, 807 N.E.2d 1078 (2004). We remanded the cause to the circuit court for a determination of whether the Board's decision to award Hare a line-of-duty disability pension was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

  8. Thompson v. Gordon

    356 Ill. App. 3d 447 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 23 times

    In a case involving an agency's interpretation of a statute that the agency is charged with administering, the agency's interpretation is considered relevant, but not binding on the court. Village of Stickney v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, 347 Ill. App. 3d 845, 848 (2004), citing Branson v. Department of Revenue, 168 Ill. 2d 247, 254 (1995). With these principles in mind, we recognize and have reviewed the Department's cease and desist order in addition to this court's Van Breemen decision.

  9. Masood v. The Div. of Prof'l Regulation of the Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Regulation

    2023 Ill. App. 220657 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    ¶ 70 Additionally, regardless of the propriety of the ALJ's ruling, an incorrect evidentiary ruling can only be the basis of reversal if the error resulted in substantial injustice. See Danigeles, 2015 IL App (1st) 142622, ¶ 82 ("An evidentiary ruling, even if incorrect, will not be reversed unless there is 'demonstrable prejudice to the complaining party.' "); Village of Stickney v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, 347 Ill.App.3d 845, 852-53 (2004) (holding that the Board's decision to exclude cross-examination conducted by party was not reversible error because the party did not show that it was prejudiced by that ruling).

  10. Masood v. Div. of Prof'l Regulation of the Ill. Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Regulation

    2023 Ill. App. 220657 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    See Danigeles, 2015 IL App (1st) 142622, ¶ 82 ("An evidentiary ruling, even if incorrect, will not be reversed unless there is demonstrable prejudice to the complaining party."); Village of Stickney v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, 347 Ill.App.3d 845, 852-53 (2004) (holding that the Board's decision to exclude cross-examination conducted by party was not reversible error because the party did not show that it was prejudiced by that ruling).