ILCS » Chapter 40 · Act 5

40 ILCS 5/5-154

Duty disability benefit; child's disability benefit

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(40 ILCS 5/5-154) (from Ch. 108 1/2, par. 5-154)
    Sec. 5-154. Duty disability benefit; child's disability benefit.
    (a) An active policeman who becomes disabled on or after the effective date as the result of injury incurred on or after such date in the performance of an act of duty, has a right to receive duty disability benefit during any period of such disability for which he does not have a right to receive salary, equal to 75% of his salary, as salary is defined in this Article, at the time the disability is allowed; or in the case of a policeman on duty disability who returns to active employment at any time for a period of at least 2 years and is again disabled from the same cause or causes, 75% of his salary, as salary is defined in this Article, at the time disability is allowed; provided, however, that:
        (i) If the disability resulted from any physical
    
defect or mental disorder or any disease which existed at the time the injury was sustained, or if the disability is less than 50% of total disability for any service of a remunerative character, the duty disability benefit shall be 50% of salary as defined in this Article.
        (ii) Beginning January 1, 1996, no duty disability
    
benefit that has been payable under this Section for at least 10 years shall be less than 50% of the current salary attached from time to time to the rank held by the policeman at the time of removal from the police department payroll, regardless of whether that removal occurred before the effective date of this amendatory Act of 1995. Beginning on January 1, 2000, no duty disability benefit that has been payable under this Section for at least 7 years shall be less than 60% of the current salary attached from time to time to the rank held by the policeman at the time of removal from the police department payroll, regardless of whether that removal occurred before the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 92nd General Assembly.
        (iii) If the Board finds that the disability of the
    
policeman is of such a nature as to permanently render him totally disabled for any service of a remunerative character, the duty disability benefit shall be 75% of the current salary attached from time to time to the rank held by the policeman at the time of removal from the police department payroll. In the case of a policeman receiving a duty disability benefit under this Section on the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 92nd General Assembly, the increase in benefit provided by this amendatory Act, if any, shall begin to accrue as of the date that the Board makes the required finding of permanent total disability, regardless of whether removal from the payroll occurred before the effective date of this amendatory Act.
    (b) The policeman shall also have a right to child's disability benefit of $100 per month for each unmarried child, the issue of the policeman, less than age 18, but the total amount of child's disability benefit shall not exceed 25% of his salary as defined in this Article. The increase in child's disability benefit provided by this amendatory Act of the 92nd General Assembly applies beginning January 1, 2000 to all such benefits payable on or after that date, regardless of whether the disabled policeman is in active service on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act.
    (c) Duty disability benefit shall be payable until the policeman becomes age 63 or would have been retired by operation of law, whichever is later, and child's disability benefit shall be paid during any such period of disability until the child attains age 18. Thereafter the policeman shall receive the annuity provided in accordance with the other provisions of this Article.
    (d) A policeman who suffers a heart attack during the performance and discharge of his or her duties as a policeman shall be considered injured in the performance of an act of duty and shall be eligible for all benefits that the City provides for police officers injured in the performance of an act of duty. This subsection (d) is a restatement of existing law and applies without regard to whether the policeman is in service on or after the effective date of Public Act 89-12 or this amendatory Act of 1996.
    (e) For the purposes of this Section only, any policeman who becomes disabled as a result of exposure to and contraction of COVID-19, as evidenced by either a confirmed positive laboratory test for COVID-19 or COVID-19 antibodies or a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 from a licensed medical professional, shall:
        (1) be rebuttably presumed to have contracted
    
COVID-19 while in the performance of an act or acts of duty;
        (2) be rebuttably presumed to have been injured while
    
in the performance of an act or acts of duty; and
        (3) be entitled to receive a duty disability benefit
    
during any period of such disability for which the policeman does not have a right to receive salary, in an amount equal to 75% of the policeman's salary, as salary is defined in this Article, at the time the disability is allowed, in accordance with subsection (a).
    The presumption shall apply to any policeman who was exposed to and contracted COVID-19 on or after March 9, 2020 and on or before January 31, 2022; except that the presumption shall not apply if the policeman was on a leave of absence from his or her employment or otherwise not required to report for duty for a period of 14 or more consecutive days immediately prior to the date of contraction of COVID-19. For the purposes of determining when a policeman contracted COVID-19 under this paragraph, the date of contraction is either the date that the policeman was diagnosed with COVID-19 or was unable to work due to symptoms that were later diagnosed as COVID-19, whichever occurred first.
    It is the intent of the General Assembly that the change made in this subsection (e) by this amendatory Act shall apply retroactively to March 9, 2020, and any policeman who has been previously denied a duty disability benefit that would otherwise be entitled to duty disability benefit under this subsection (e) shall be entitled to retroactive benefits and duty disability benefit.
(Source: P.A. 103-2, eff. 5-10-23; 103-692, eff. 7-19-24.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: Summers v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annunity & Benefit Fund
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Summers v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annunity & Benefit Fund (2013) illappct · cites it 4× “See 40 ILCS 5/5-154 (West 2010). If Summers became disabled as the result of any cause other than an injury incurred in the performance of an act of duty, he would be entitled to “ordinary” disability at an amount equal to 50% of his salary.”
Ralph Licari v. City of Chicago, Miriam Santos, Richard J. Jones, Walter K. Knorr and Charles R. Loftus, in Their Indivi (2002) ca7 “40 ILCS 5/5-154(a) (West 1996). The Pension Code defines a disability as "[a] condition of physical or mental incapacity to perform any assigned duty or duties in the police service.”
Rainey v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago (2024) illappct · cites it 4× “OPINION ¶1 In 2017, plaintiff Tamica Rainey was awarded duty disability benefits under section 5-154 of the Illinois Pension Code (Code) (40 ILCS 5/5-154 (West 2016)). Defendant, the Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago (Board), set…”
Kelly v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund (2022) illappct “See 40 ILCS 5/5-154, 5-155 (West 2020). ¶ 45 The Illinois Supreme Court has agreed with the following principles that have developed in applying the Pension Code to claims of duty-related stress: “In examining claims of duty-related stress ***, courts have required that…”
Warner v. The Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago (2022) illappct · cites it 5× “A line- of-duty disability pension entitles a police officer a disability pension “equal to 75% of his salary, as salary is defined in this Article…” 40 ILCS 5/5-154 (West 2001). Alternatively, an ordinary disability pension entitles a police officer to 50% of his or her salary.”
Moreland v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago (2024) illappct · cites it 2× “Under section 5-154(a) of the Code (40 ILCS 5/5-154(a) (West 2022)): “An active policeman who becomes disabled *** as the result of injury incurred *** in the performance of an act of duty, has a right to receive duty disability benefit” generally at the -8- No.”
Salcedo v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago (2023) illappct “3d at 528 ; see also 40 ILCS 5/5-154(a) (West 2020). - 21 - No.”
Cole v. RETIREMENT BD. POLICEMEN'S ANNU. (2009) illappct · cites it 4× “She was diagnosed with a herniated disc. It was determined that she also suffered from degenerative disc disease.”
Rainey v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago (2025) ill · cites it 3× “See 40 ILCS 5/5-154, 5- 154.1 (West 2022). In response, Rainey argues that the plain language of the attorney fees and costs provision directs that she is entitled to the statutory fee because she successfully challenged the Board’s denial of her continued duty disability…”
Nelson v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago (2020) illappct “” 40 ILCS 5/5-154 (West 2016). ¶ 38 As stated above, an act of duty is defined by the Pension Code as: “Any act of police duty inherently involving special risk, not ordinarily assumed by a 12 No.”
Koniarski v. Retirement Board of the Policeman's Annuity & Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago (2021) illappct “See 40 ILCS 5/5-154 (West 2018). Rather, it involves proceedings initiated by the Board -13- No.”
Hernandez v. The Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago (2022) illappct · cites it 3× “1-21-1315 applied to the Board for duty disability benefits under section 5-154 of the Illinois Pension Code (Code) (40 ILCS 5/5-154(a) (West 2018)). The Board determined that Hernandez receive benefits at 50% of his salary rather than 75% because his disability resulted from a…”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— 40 ILCS 5/5-154(a) — 12 cases
Ralph Licari v. City of Chicago, Miriam Santos, Richard J. Jones, Walter K. Knorr and Charles R. Loftus, in Their Indivi (2002) ca7 “40 ILCS 5/5-154(a) (West 1996). The Pension Code defines a disability as "[a] condition of physical or mental incapacity to perform any assigned duty or duties in the police service.”
Rainey v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago (2024) illappct “OPINION ¶1 In 2017, plaintiff Tamica Rainey was awarded duty disability benefits under section 5-154 of the Illinois Pension Code (Code) (40 ILCS 5/5-154 (West 2016)). Defendant, the Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago (Board), set…”
Moreland v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago (2024) illappct “Under section 5-154(a) of the Code (40 ILCS 5/5-154(a) (West 2022)): “An active policeman who becomes disabled *** as the result of injury incurred *** in the performance of an act of duty, has a right to receive duty disability benefit” generally at the -8- No.”
Salcedo v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago (2023) illappct “3d at 528 ; see also 40 ILCS 5/5-154(a) (West 2020). - 21 - No.”
Svec v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago (2025) illappct
— 40 ILCS 5/5-154(a)(i) — 3 cases
Cole v. RETIREMENT BD. POLICEMEN'S ANNU. (2009) illappct “She was diagnosed with a herniated disc. It was determined that she also suffered from degenerative disc disease.”
Nelson v. Retirement Board of the Police Annuity and Benefit Fund City of Chicago (2022) illappct
Hernandez v. The Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago (2022) illappct “1-21-1315 applied to the Board for duty disability benefits under section 5-154 of the Illinois Pension Code (Code) (40 ILCS 5/5-154(a) (West 2018)). The Board determined that Hernandez receive benefits at 50% of his salary rather than 75% because his disability resulted from a…”
— 40 ILCS 5/5-154(c) — 2 cases
Summers v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annunity & Benefit Fund (2013) illappct “See 40 ILCS 5/5-154 (West 2010). If Summers became disabled as the result of any cause other than an injury incurred in the performance of an act of duty, he would be entitled to “ordinary” disability at an amount equal to 50% of his salary.”
Cole v. RETIREMENT BD. POLICEMEN'S ANNU. (2009) illappct “She was diagnosed with a herniated disc. It was determined that she also suffered from degenerative disc disease.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.