Posture and result

Mahan v. Marion Police Pension Board, 2026 IL App (5th) 260066, reversed termination of Mahan’s line-of-duty disability pension; the order was filed September 2, 2026, and publication was granted October 6, 2026 (caption; ¶¶ 63–64). Following earlier reversals, the Board again terminated benefits by a 3–2 vote, and the circuit court affirmed (¶¶ 3, 38–40). Mahan challenged both the evidentiary basis and two trustees’ participation; the appellate court sustained both challenges (¶¶ 42, 63).

Analysis

The court reviewed the agency’s decision, treating its factual findings as prima facie correct and applying manifest-weight review: reversal requires the opposite conclusion to be clearly evident, without appellate reweighing or resolution of evidentiary conflicts (¶ 43). Continued benefits depend on continued disability, and termination requires recovery from that disability (¶ 46).

The court found the Board’s reliance on Dr. Sampat defective because his account of a temporary strain disputed the original disabling condition. Drs. Lange and Rerri had identified a herniation and osteophyte affecting a nerve root, rejected surgery as too risky, and considered Mahan permanently disabled from police work (¶¶ 45–46). Sampat nevertheless characterized the injury as a strain ordinarily resolving within 6–12 weeks (¶ 46).

The Board preferred Sampat because he considered Marion’s job description. But that description incorporated physical requirements he did not know, and he had not obtained their particulars (¶¶ 34, 47–48). The court examined Illinois POWER fitness standards and treated them as relevant to return from a duty injury (¶¶ 49–52). Both functional capacity evaluations (FCEs) supported only medium-demand work and unsuccessful fitness testing, while police work required heavier demands; Sampat’s malingering theory did not explain the earlier FCE’s limitations despite full effort (¶¶ 52–53).

Separately, administrative due process requires an impartial tribunal; presumed impartiality can be overcome by evidence that a disinterested observer would perceive prejudgment, and one interested decision maker can invalidate the decision (¶ 55). The court found Henry’s jogging and Zumba remarks, and Beasley Wright’s statements about winning and paying benefits under protest, demonstrated prejudgment in context. Their assurances of impartiality did not cure it (¶¶ 56–61).

Adverse evidence and limits

Sampat reported a normal neurological examination, full spinal motion, and two Waddell signs he interpreted as exaggeration. He questioned the 2024 FCE’s 80% consistency and opined that Mahan could perform unrestricted police duties (¶¶ 30–34). Earlier physicians Robson and Yazdi likewise supported return to duty (¶¶ 25–27). Mahan continued selling modular homes, used a weedwhacker, maintained firearms qualification, and took no medication for his back condition; he also acknowledged reporting pain as low as two despite testifying that it never fell below four (¶¶ 14–16). These facts warrant attention without equating those activities with full police capacity (¶¶ 11, 53).

Conversely, the 2024 FCE reported reliable pain responses and interpreted its effort findings favorably; the earlier FCE documented specific lifting, endurance, and coordination failures (¶¶ 28, 36). The opinion contains an unresolved inconsistency: paragraph 28 reports zero Waddell signs in the 2024 FCE, whereas paragraphs 44 and 53 describe signs during that evaluation. Counsel should not silently reconcile those accounts. The Board characterized the trustees’ comments as jokes and relied on their assurances; the court rejected that defense after considering context (¶¶ 5, 8, 61).

What to verify next

Review the actual FCEs, Sampat’s materials, and the job description to resolve the Waddell discrepancy and confirm what testing and requirements informed each opinion (¶¶ 28, 34, 36, 44, 48–53). Examine the cited regulations and application, including the court’s judicially noticed application, before extending its reasoning from entry standards to other return-to-duty disputes (¶¶ 49–52 & n.4). Separately verify later treatment, procedural developments, and current authority; none is established by this supplied opinion. For any future hearing, examine panel composition: the court suggested these trustees’ removal rather than expressly ordering a remand (¶¶ 61–64).

Bottom line

The termination failed on both evidentiary and impartiality grounds (¶ 63). The opinion supports scrutiny of recovery evidence and prejudgment, while recognizing that pension entitlement remains contingent on continued disability (¶¶ 46, 53, 55–61).