Posture and result

Mahan v. Marion Police Pension Board, 2026 IL App (5th) 260066, reversed the Board’s termination of Mahan’s line-of-duty disability pension. The Board voted 3–2 to terminate, and the circuit court affirmed; the appellate court found both manifest-weight error and a denial of due process. (¶¶ 38–40, 63–64.) The order was filed September 2, 2026, and publication was granted October 6, 2026. (Caption.) The following develops the Board’s position while acknowledging its rejection.

Analysis

The Board’s strongest argument begins with administrative deference: agency fact findings are prima facie correct; reviewing courts do not reweigh conflicting evidence; reversal requires that the opposite conclusion be clearly evident. Review concerns the agency’s decision, rather than the circuit court’s reasoning. (¶ 43.) The Board could characterize this record as a medical disagreement committed to its credibility judgment: the FCE limited Mahan to medium-demand work, whereas Dr. Sampat concluded he could perform unrestricted police duties. (¶¶ 30–34, 44.)

Sampat, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon specializing in spinal problems, reported normal neurological findings, full spinal motion, and no objective abnormal findings; he identified two responses that he interpreted as Waddell signs suggesting exaggeration or malingering. (¶¶ 30–32.) He reviewed Marion’s job description and expressly opined that Mahan could perform every listed duty. (¶ 34.) The Board could argue that this individualized medical assessment deserved greater weight than a functional classification, particularly because Sampat questioned the FCE’s 80-percent consistency finding. These were the physician’s opinions and the Board’s rationale, not appellate findings of recovery. (¶¶ 33–34, 39, 47.)

As corroboration, the Board could invoke earlier opinions by Drs. Robson and Yazdi supporting full-duty capacity, Mahan’s lack of pain medication, occasional weedwhacker use, and firearms requalification. (¶¶ 15–16, 25–27.) Those facts support scrutiny of claimed limitations, although they cannot alone establish capacity for every police duty. Mahan himself distinguished desk work and shooting qualification from pursuing suspects, controlling resistance, or assisting another officer. (¶¶ 11, 15–16.)

On impartiality, the Board could invoke the presumption of objective adjudication and the requirement of more than possible bias. (¶ 55.) It contended the remarks were jokes, emphasized that retroactive benefits were approved, and obtained both members’ assurances that they would decide solely on the evidence. (¶¶ 5, 7–8.) That supplies its strongest defense of participation, but the court rejected it. (¶ 61.)

Adverse evidence and limits

The central defect was proof of recovery. The court treated the original herniation and nerve-root osteophyte, associated permanent disability opinions, and unacceptable surgical risks as undisputed. Sampat instead characterized the original injury as a temporary strain. The court concluded that disputing the established disabling condition undermined his ability to establish recovery from it; continued benefits depended on continued disability, and termination required recovery. (¶¶ 45–46.)

The job-specific defense also failed because Sampat did not know the physical standards incorporated into Marion’s description. The court relied on Illinois POWER requirements, the FCEs’ performance results, and the absence of evidence establishing heavy-demand capacity. The fully cooperative 2018 FCE remained unexplained by accusations of later malingering. (¶¶ 47–53.)

The opinion itself requires careful reading: paragraph 28 describes the 2024 FCE as recording zero Waddell signs, reliable pain reports, and evidence supporting full effort, whereas paragraph 44 says both examinations found Waddell signs. The Board cannot responsibly treat this discrepancy as resolved in its favor. (¶¶ 28, 31, 44.)

Independently, the court found prejudgment in the jogging, Zumba, and “going for broke” remarks and rejected the members’ assurances. One interested decision maker could invalidate the decision; the court found a due-process violation and suggested removing these members from future Mahan panels. (¶¶ 55–61.)

What to verify next

Review the underlying FCEs, Sampat’s complete deposition and supplied materials, the operative physical requirements, and the recording before developing further arguments; these are the record gaps and discrepancies identified above. (¶¶ 28, 34, 44, 48–53, 56–61.) Separately check subsequent proceedings and treatment; none is established here.

Bottom line

Deference and contrary medical opinions furnish the Board’s best advocacy, but this decision rejects both its recovery finding and the tribunal’s impartiality. Any future defense must confront both grounds. (¶¶ 43–53, 61–64.)