Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over Chicago police recruit
A Chicago probationary police officer or recruit-in-training who has not yet been sworn in as a police officer and has not received the police powers and responsibilities entailed therein falls within the definition of an employee under Section 1(b)1 of the WCA. Therefore, the Commission has jurisdiction over the officer.
The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed the arbitrator’s finding that Section 1(b)1 of the WCA precluded the claimant from recovery. The Commission determined that it had jurisdiction and found the claimant entitled to benefits for her accident while training as a police recruit
The claimant was training as a recruit in the Chicago police academy when she injured her knee. She filed a claim for benefits under the Illinois WCA. The arbitrator found that the WCA lacked jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1(b)1 of the WCA, which precludes from the definition of employee any “duly appointed member of the police department” in cities where the population exceeds 200,000. In Chicago, the police pension fund provides disability benefits for police officers that are injured while on and off the job. Testimony indicated that a probationary police officer who is a recruit at the police academy is required to contribute to the pension fund from her first date of employment with the Chicago Police Department, and she is eligible for benefits from the fund upon her initial contribution. In reversing, a Commission majority found that there was no dispute that at the time of the accident, the claimant was a probationary police officer who had not yet been sworn in as a police officer and had not received the police powers and responsibilities entailed therein. With the one exception of the police pension fund, the claimant was treated as an “at will” civilian rather than a sworn police officer. As such, the Commission found that the claimant fell within the definition of an employee under Section 1(b)1 of the WCA. Accordingly, the Commission had jurisdiction over the defendant and claimant.
The Commission went on to find that the claimant’s back injury while running up a hill during training arose out of and in the course of her employment. Although the claimant was performing a routine function of running, which is common to all people, she was required to do so in a more rigorous fashion than most people would be subjected to on a daily basis.
In a dissenting opinion, Commissioner Basurto argued that by distinguishing between probationary officers and sworn officers, the majority read into the statute a division that did not appear in the WCA and was not intended by the legislature. The commissioner also pointed out that the majority only made a passing reference to the fact that the police pension fund views probationary police officers the same as police officers who have sworn an oath. Because the pension board handles an employee’s on-the-job disabilities, it should be given greater weight than any other entity that deals with the policeman’s conduct or benefit entitlement. Lastly, the commissioner noted that the pension code provided equivalent alternative benefits for police officers, and therefore, the claimant was not left without a remedy in which to obtain benefits for her injury.
