ILCS » Chapter 40 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

40 ILCS 5/5-189 (2026)

To authorize payments

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(40 ILCS 5/5-189) (from Ch. 108 1/2, par. 5-189)
    Sec. 5-189. To authorize payments.
    To authorize the payment of any annuity, pension, or benefit granted under this Article or under any other Act relating to police pensions, heretofore in effect in the city which has been superseded by this Article; to increase, reduce, or suspend any such annuity, pension, or benefit whenever any part thereof was secured or granted or the amount thereof fixed, as the result of misrepresentation, fraud, or error; provided, the annuitant, pensioner or beneficiary concerned shall be notified and given an opportunity to be heard concerning such proposed action.
    The Board shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to or affecting the fund, including, in addition to all other matters, all claims for annuities, pensions, benefits or refunds.
(Source: P.A. 77-2141.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2008–2025 · leading case: People ex rel. Madigan v. Burge, 2014 IL 115635 (Ill. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People ex rel. Madigan v. Burge, 2014 IL 115635 (Ill. 2014). · cites it 6× “” 40 ILCS 5/5-189 (West 2012). ¶ 21 Defendants acknowledge, as they must, that not all legal challenges to “matters relating to or affecting the fund” fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board.”
Kelly v. Ret. Bd. of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund, 2022 IL App (1st) 210483 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “1-21-0483 ¶ 63 The circuit court denied Kelly’s fee petition, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction because section 5-189 of the Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/5-189 (West 2020)) gave the Board exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to or affecting the fund.”
People v. Burge, 2014 IL 115635 (Ill. 2014). · cites it 7× “” 40 ILCS 5/5-189 (West 2012). ¶ 21 Defendants acknowledge, as they must, that not all legal challenges to “matters relating to or affecting the fund” fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board.”
Kaczka v. Ret. Bd. of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund, 923 N.E.2d 1282 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “40 ILCS 5/5-189 (West 2008). In its order of April 2, 2008, denying the plaintiff's application for a resumption of his widow's annuity benefit, the Board specifically found that the annuity benefit awarded to the plaintiff in the first instance was the "result of a clerical…”
People ex rel. Lisa Madigan v. Burge, 2012 IL App (1st) 112842 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 4× “The circuit court determined that section 1-115 of the Pension Code did not vest it with subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the Attorney General’s complaint where section 5-189 of the Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/5-189 (West 2010))1 vested the Board with exclusive…”
Ohlicher v. The Ret. Bd. of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago, 2024 IL App (1st) 231699-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 2× “In Kouzoukas, our supreme court held that making the decision to grant or reject a claimant’s application for a duty disability benefit dependent on the availability of an assignment in the Department within the claimant’s restrictions, does not encroach on the Board’s exclusive…”
Moreland v. Ret. Bd. of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, 2024 IL App (1st) 240049 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “See 40 ILCS 5/5-189 (West 2022) (providing that “[t]he Board shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to or affecting the fund, including, in addition to all other matters, all claims for annuities, pensions, benefits or refunds”).”
Moreland v. Ret. Bd. of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago, 2025 IL 131343 (Ill. 2025). “at 470-71 (citing 40 ILCS 5/5-189 (West 2006)). This court disagreed, explaining as follows: - 16 - “The Board has the duty under the Code to determine whether a claimant is disabled.”
Kouzoukas v. Ret. Bd. Policemen's an., 890 N.E.2d 1135 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “" 40 ILCS 5/5-189 (West 2006). However, we find nothing in section 5-189, or any other section of the Code, that grants the Board the power to award interest pursuant to section 2 of the Interest Act (815 ILCS 205/2 (West 2006)).”
Stanczyk v. The Ret. Bd. of the Policeman's Annuity & Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago, 2024 IL App (1st) 221870-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “40 ILCS 5/5-189 (West 2020). The provisions of the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq.”
Kaczka v. Ret. Bd. of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “40 ILCS 5/5-189 (West 2008). In its order of April 2, 2008, denying the plaintiff’s application for a resumption of his widow’s annuity benefit, the Board specifically found that the annuity benefit awarded to the plaintiff in the first instance was the "result of a clerical…”
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.