In March 2019, Aaron Shirley, a police sergeant for the Clarendon Hills Police Department in Illinois, was injured on duty while assisting paramedics in restraining a minor lying on a cot. While restraining the minor, Shirley felt a “pop” in his right shoulder and later experienced severe pain and decreased strength in his arm due to the injury. Thus began a saga of several years’ worth of shoulder pain, conflicting doctors’ reports, and pension issues.
Shortly after the initial pop, Shirley began physical therapy for his right shoulder and elbow strain and was prescribed ibuprofen and hot/cold compresses. After 12 sessions, Shirley went for an evaluation by Dr. Giridhar Burra, an orthopedic specialist. Burra diagnosed Shirley with a lesion of his labrum, otherwise known as a SLAP tear, and recommended surgery. He cautioned Shirley that the conservative option – continuing physical therapy – was likely to be futile, but Shirley was very resistant to the notion of surgery, and instead, returned to physical therapy.
Burra reevaluated Shirley and found that his symptoms had not improved, cautioning Shirley again that further attempts at conservative treatment would be futile. After Shirley underwent a functional capacity examination, Burra concluded that he was at maximum medical improvement based on his decision not to undergo surgery.
While pursuing a worker’s compensation claim, Shirley was evaluated by Dr. Matthew Saltzman, the workers’ compensation insurance company’s doctor. “Saltzman likewise diagnosed plaintiff with a SLAP tear of the right shoulder and opined that surgery ‘would hopefully resolve most if not all of his shoulder pain’ and ‘would be beneficial, particularly given the fact that Shirley had done physical therapy, and he complained of persistent pain and inability to do his job due to that pain.’”
For the next two years, Shirley was on light-duty restriction at work. The position was terminated in 2021, which prompted Shirley to stop working and apply for a line-of-duty disability pension and, in the alternative, a non-duty disability pension.
The Board of Trustees of the Village of Clarendon Hills Police Pension Fund elected three physicians to independently medically examine Shirley. Two of the three physicians diagnosed him with a SLAP tear, and those same two concluded that surgery was the best option for it. One noted: “The fact that he chooses not to pursue this makes me concerned regarding his desire to return to full duty as a police sergeant.”
Shirley testified that “he refused surgery partly because he knew people with the same injury and for whom surgery was not successful and because a physician advised him to try to avoid stressful situations due to a neurological condition that he had and that he also refused the surgery because Burra and Saltzman told him that it was accompanied by the risks of infection, ineffectiveness, and exacerbating his injury.”
The Board found that Shirley’s disability was not properly attributable to, or the result of, an injury, and denied him both line-of-duty and non-duty disability pensions. The Board noted that the slight risks of surgery noted by the examining doctors “were substantially outweighed by an overwhelming probability that the surgery would successfully resolve plaintiff’s medical issues related to his right shoulder.”
Shirley appealed to the Illinois Third District Appellate Court, raising the issue of whether the evidence of record supports the Board’s denial of line-of-duty and non-duty disability pensions, which are questions of fact. Proceeding from the understanding that the Court was empowered only to overturn those administrative decisions which were against the manifest weight of evidence, the Court affirmed the conclusions of the Board on both denials.
With respect to the line-of-duty pension, Shirley’s argument was that his refusal of surgery was reasonable, based on the risks described to him. But “the evidence presented at the hearing in this case did not support a finding that conservative treatment, or any treatment other than surgery, was a reasonable remedy to Shirley’s injury. Even his argument that his refusal to undergo surgery was reasonable because the refusal was made in good faith and based on his sincere concerns regarding the risks of the recommended surgery and the impact that it might have on his neurological condition” was rejected, as Shirley “did not offer testimony from a psychiatrist, neurologist, or someone similarly qualified to opine on the sincerity or reasonableness of his concerns regarding the recommended surgery or the fact that his neurological condition actually existed.”
As to the non-duty disability pension, the Court relied on precedent providing that “a compensable disability will not be found if the claimant unreasonably refuses the necessary medical treatment of the disabling injury.” Here, the Court could not conclude that the Board’s assessment in this matter – that his refusal was unreasonable – was against the manifest weight of evidence.
Shirley v. Village of Clarendon Hills Police Pension Fund et al., 2024 Ill. App. LEXIS 2427 (2024).