Posture and result

Mahan v. Marion Police Pension Board, 2026 IL App (5th) 260066, reversed the Board’s renewed termination of Mahan’s disability pension after the circuit court affirmed. The appellate court found both a decision against the manifest weight of the evidence and a due process violation (¶¶ 40, 63–64). The order was filed September 2, 2026; publication was granted October 6, 2026 (caption). The defense must therefore be assessed against an express reversal, not an unresolved outcome.

Analysis

The Board’s strongest starting point is deference: agency findings are prima facie correct, reviewing courts do not reweigh conflicting evidence, and reversal requires a clearly evident opposite conclusion (¶ 43). Its medical position was not unsupported. Spine specialist Dr. Sampat reported normal neurological findings and full spinal motion, observed two responses he interpreted as Waddell signs suggesting exaggeration, and opined that Mahan could resume unrestricted police duties (¶¶ 30–34). Earlier physicians Robson and Yazdi also supported return to police work (¶¶ 25–27). Those opinions provide a substantial argument that the Board was resolving a medical conflict within its institutional role.

The central weakness, however, is the foundation of Sampat’s recovery opinion. The court treated the original herniation and osteophyte diagnoses, with permanent disability and unsuitable surgical options, as established evidence. Sampat instead characterized the injury as a temporary strain that should have resolved within weeks (¶¶ 45–46). Because termination depends on recovery from the disability, his disagreement with the original disabling condition did not adequately demonstrate recovery from it (¶ 46). Defending credibility alone misses this mismatch.

A second decisive weakness concerns functional capacity. The Board preferred Sampat because he purportedly considered Marion’s actual job requirements, but he did not know the incorporated state and local physical standards or request their details (¶¶ 34, 47–48). The court connected those requirements to POWER testing and found both functional capacity evaluations showed inadequate performance (¶¶ 49–52). Particularly damaging, Sampat had not received the earlier FCE, which the court described as showing full effort but only medium work capacity; his malingering explanation did not account for that result (¶¶ 34, 52–53).

Adverse evidence and limits

The defense can fairly question the newer FCE’s 80% effort consistency, its occupational classification, and a 100-pound benchmark absent from Marion’s written description (¶¶ 15, 28, 33, 47). Mahan also acknowledged employment, weedwhacker use, firearm qualification, and discontinuing pain medication (¶¶ 15–16). These facts complicate his presentation, but they do not establish capacity for every police duty; the court emphasized the absence of evidence supporting heavy work despite the earlier full-effort testing (¶ 53).

The opinion itself warrants careful reading: paragraph 44 says both examinations found Waddell signs, whereas paragraph 28 reports the newer FCE’s score as zero, with reliable pain reports. This inconsistency should be flagged, not silently converted into corroboration of malingering. Sampat’s interpretation remains a witness opinion, not an appellate finding that Mahan feigned disability (¶¶ 28, 31, 44, 53).

Bias independently defeats a defense focused solely on medical sufficiency. The Board characterized the remarks as jokes; the challenged members promised impartiality and had voted to issue retroactive benefits (¶¶ 5, 7–8). Those points support the defense under the presumption of objectivity and requirement of more than possible bias (¶ 55). Nevertheless, the court found that remarks about jogging, teaching Zumba, and winning the next proceeding demonstrated prejudgment, and rejected the assurances in context. One interested decision maker suffices to invalidate the decision; the court found two and suggested their exclusion from future Mahan hearings (¶¶ 55–61).

What to verify next

Review the underlying FCEs to reconcile the Waddell discrepancy, identify omitted tests, and confirm applicable age-specific thresholds; the opinion describes differing test particulars and eliminated testing (¶¶ 28, 36, 52). Verify the complete physical requirements incorporated into Marion’s job description and whether any recovery assessment actually tests them (¶¶ 23, 34, 48). For any future proceeding, verify panel composition against the court’s exclusion suggestion (¶ 61). These are proposed checks, not completed research.

Bottom line

Deference and competing medical opinions supplied a serious defense, but cannot cure the recovery opinion’s faulty premise, missing functional analysis, or independently disqualifying prejudgment. The court expressly reversed on both evidentiary and due process grounds (¶¶ 46–53, 61, 63–64).
