Bill
SB 1708
The bill would require the Chicago Police Pension Fund to pay court costs and attorney fees for officers who prevail in administrative-review challenges to disability benefit denia
Status (key dates)
- Introduced: February 5, 2025 (Sen. Robert F. Martwick).
- Senate action: Passed the Senate (recorded votes on May 6, 2025).
- House action: Referred to committees and considered; the bill ultimately died in Rules on June 16, 2025. A companion measure (SB 2510) was enacted (Ch. 2025-203).
Purpose
- To amend the Illinois Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/5-228) to require the Chicago Police Pension Fund to pay court costs and litigation expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, to a police officer who prevails in an administrative-review action challenging the denial or termination of certain disability benefits.
Key provisions
- Entitles a prevailing policeman in an administrative review to recover from the Chicago Police Pension Fund:
- Court costs, and
- Litigation expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees,
when the officer successfully challenges:
- Denial of an application for an ordinary disability benefit, or
- Termination of a duty disability, ordinary disability, or occupational disability benefit (where the denial/termination was by majority vote of the Board of Trustees).
- Clarifies that the Administrative Review Law governs judicial review of retirement board decisions under the Article.
- State Mandates Act: Adds a new provision (30 ILCS 805/8.49) declaring that no State reimbursement is required for implementing the mandate created by this bill (i.e., local entities are not entitled to State reimbursement).
- Effective date: the act would take effect upon becoming law.
Who is affected
- Primary: Chicago police officers who apply for or whose disability benefits are denied or terminated, and who pursue and prevail in administrative-review litigation.
- Financially affected entity: The Chicago Police Pension Fund — liable to pay awarded costs and attorney’s fees to prevailing claimants.
- Local fiscal impact: The State Mandates Act amendment makes the mandate exempt from state reimbursement, so local funds would bear costs.
Potential impacts
- Legal remedy: Strengthens financial recovery for officers who successfully challenge benefit denials/terminations, potentially increasing access to counsel and incentives to litigate.
- Fiscal: Could raise the Fund’s expenditures (amounts depend on number and size of successful claims and associated fees). Because the bill exempts the mandate from state reimbursement, those costs would be borne by the Fund/local entities rather than the State.
- Administrative: May influence Board decisions, negotiation tactics, and the frequency of appeals.
Procedural note
- Although SB 1708 advanced in the Senate, it died in Rules on June 16, 2025; stakeholders should consult the enacted companion (SB 2510) to determine which provisions, if any, became law.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
