Order filed September 2, 2026. 2026 IL App (5th) 260066
Motion to publish granted
October 6, 2026. NO. 5-26-0066
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT
JOSHUA MAHAN, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Williamson County.
)
v. ) No. 25-MR-21
)
MARION POLICE PENSION BOARD, TOM WOODS, )
RONALD SWAFFORD, JESSIE THOMPSON, )
TERANCE HENRY and TAMMY BEASLEY, ) Honorable
) Amanda Byassee Gott,
Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE VAUGHAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices McHaney and Clarke concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 Appellant, Joshua Mahan, appeals the most recent findings of the Marion Police Pension
Board (Board), which again terminated his line-of-duty disability pension. On appeal, Mahan
contends that two of the board members should have been removed from the panel of decision
makers due to their bias and that the Board’s decision is against the manifest weight of the
evidence. For the following reasons, we reverse the Board’s decision.
¶2 I. BACKGROUND
¶3 Mahan began working as a police officer for the Marion Police Department on October 15,
2007. He was injured in the line-of-duty on May 20, 2011, and applied for line-of-duty disability
pension benefits. The application was granted on July 26, 2012. Subsequent disability hearings,
1
required to determine Mahan’s continued eligibility for benefits, resulted in continued benefits in
2016 and 2017. In 2018, the Board determined that Mahan was no longer eligible for benefits
based on a report from Dr. Joseph Yazdi. Mahan appealed that decision and the Williamson County
circuit court reversed the Board’s decision. In January 2020 the Board notified Mahan of the next
hearing to determine his continued eligibility for disability pension benefits. The hearing was
ultimately held on March 10, 2021. Following that hearing, Terrence Henry moved for a finding
that Mahan had “recovered from his disability to his thoracic spine and his disability payments
should cease.” Tammy Beasley Wright seconded the motion. Ultimately, the benefits were
terminated with a 4-1 vote with Jessie Thompson being the only Board member to deny the motion.
Mahan appealed and the circuit court affirmed. Mahan then appealed to this court, and we reversed
the Board’s termination of benefits finding the decision was against the manifest weight of the
evidence. See Mahan v. Marion Police Pension Board, 2023 IL App (5th) 210426, ¶ 35. The
decision also expressed disapproval of the Board’s attorney, Dennis Orsey, serving in the dual
capacity of both the Board’s attorney and the hearing officer for the proceedings. Id. ¶ 36.
¶4 Another review hearing was scheduled for November 21, 2024. On November 15, 2024,
Mahan’s counsel filed a motion to exclude Board members Tammy Beasley Wright and Terrance
Henry from Mahan’s hearing. The motion alleged that after the appellate court decision was issued,
a Board meeting was held on March 29, 2023, to consider, inter alia, approval of the retroactive
payment of benefits due to Mahan. The motion further alleged that the meeting was recorded and
during the meeting two Board members, Beasley Wright and Henry, made comments that revealed
a predisposition of those Board members that Mahan was not entitled to disability pension benefits.
As to the statements, the motion alleged the following statements were made during the hearing:
(1) “At 59:00 a comment was made by a board member about how to win the next time and Tammy
2
Beasley commented, ‘let’s go for broke,’ at 59:20”; (2) “At 1:03:52 Terrance Henry commented
regarding Mahan’s appearance at the meeting to the effect that ‘he’ll probably come in jogging’ to
which the response was laughing”; (3) “At 1:05:20 a comment was made by Terrance Henry that
Mahan was ‘probably teaching Zumba’ ”; (4) “At 1:06:20-25 Tammy Beasley Wright commented
that she was not going to move to approve the [retroactive disability pension benefit] payment”;
and (5) “[A]t 1:06:56 [Beasley Wright] stated she acknowledged her approval [of Mahan’s
retroactive disability pension benefit payments] ‘under protest.’ ” Mahan’s motion alleged that the
statements by those two Board members expressed a bias that Mahan was not entitled to continuing
benefits, a disagreement with prior decisions and a likelihood that they would “ignore evidence
submitted at the hearing.” Mahan alleged that it was prejudicial and deprived him of due process
and a fair hearing to allow those two of the five Board members to participate in the planned review
hearing.
¶5 The Board responded by admitting it did not know the hearing was recorded and that the
comments made by Henry and Beasley Wright were taken out of context and did not represent any
predisposition on making a future determination as to whether Mahan should continue to receive
disability benefits. The response claimed that Mahan’s motion was an “eleventh hour attempt to
remove pension board trustees [and] appears to be designed to ‘muddy the waters’ immediately
prior to the scheduled hearing.” It stated that review of the actual recording would allow a listener
to clearly ascertain that comments were “typically surrounded by laughter” and were “stated in
jest.” It further stated that the result of the vote at the meeting was to pay retroactive benefits to
Mahan based on our appellate court decision. The response further relied on the presumption of a
fair tribunal (citing Klomann v. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, 284 Ill. App. 3d 224 (1996)),
that an inquiry as to impartiality could be made (citing Turcol v. Pension Board of Trustees of
3
Matteson Police Pension Board, 359 Ill. App. 3d 795 (2005)), and that Mahan was required to
prove that the Board member had adjudicated the facts as well as the law in advance of hearing
the case (citing Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 175 Ill. App. 3d
1023 (1988)).
¶6 The hearing proceeded before hearing officer, James Dobrovolny, on November 21, 2024.
Orsey continued to represent the Board. Dobrovolny stated that the burden of proving continued
entitlement to disability benefits was on Mahan. Before the merits of the case were addressed,
Dobrovolny first addressed the pending motion to recuse two of the Board members. The parties
agreed that the recording could be placed into evidence, instead of the transcript, and the hearing
officer stated that it would come in under the Open Meeting Act. Mahan noted that at the 19-minute mark of the recording, it was clear that the members knew the meeting was being recorded.
¶7 The four instances referenced in Mahan’s motion were played to determine the context.
The comment stating, “I bet he’ll come in jogging” was made after the treasurer stated that Mahan
had to come in and filled out paperwork. Laughter is heard after the statement. The context for the
“probably teaching Zumba” comment started with Orsey stating that no special meeting would be
called to address the appellate court decision and that once the Board approved the payment of
retroactive benefits, the check would be issued. In response, Henry stated, “He must have a bill to
pay.” Beasley Wright stated, “That’s probably what it is, yeah.” Orsey then agreed with Henry and
Beasley Wright. An unidentified speaker stated, “Well, I’m surprised he’s not here.” Orsey replied,
“Saying hand me the check?” Henry then stated, “Yeah. That’s what I’m saying. It sounds like—
it sounds like he’s got a bill to pay.” Orsey agreed and stated he was “surprised he’s not here
today.” An unidentified speaker stated they would get the check ready and stated, “He’s probably
not able to be here.” Orsey stated that “he’s probably working at his other job” and was interrupted
4
by Henry who stated, “Teaching Zumba someplace. All right. What’s our next thing?” Orsey
replied that a motion was needed for the backpay amount. The treasurer clarified the amount was
approximately $62,000. An unidentified speaker stated, “I’m going to draw on that” and a second
unidentified speaker made the motion which was seconded by Board member Ronald Swafford.
A vote was then taken and all voted yes, with Beasley Wright adding the words, “under protest.”
Thereafter, additional laughter is heard.
¶8 Following the audio presentation, the hearing officer asked Beasley Wright if she could be
“fair and impartial and objective in hearing this matter today,” and Beasley Wright said, “Yes, I
do.” She was then asked if she could “confine your consideration to whatever the evidence is that’s
in the record” with no “extraneous stuff from wherever.” Beasley Wright said, “Absolutely.” The
same questions were asked of Henry, who also answered in the affirmative. The hearing officer
stated, citing Collura v. Board of Police Commissioners, 113 Ill. 2d 361 (1986) and Danko v.
Harvey Police Pension Board, 240 Ill. App. 3d 6633 (1992), that Mahan needed “to have a little
bit more than what I have seen here so far” and denied the motion.
¶9 The hearing officer then admitted all the evidence, with no objection from either side, and
allowed the parties to provide opening statements. Mahan testified that he was currently 43 years
old and was injured on May 20, 2011. He was awarded line of duty pension benefits in 2012 and
had not worked as a police officer since that time. He stated that he had seen no improvement in
his condition since he testified previously in 2021. He explained that the problem was in the base
of his neck, upper back, and right between his shoulder blades. He stated that it felt like he had a
constant hot rock there that tingled, burned, and radiated out. He would get spasms that started
there and then wrapped into his chest and ribs. The spasms occurred randomly and came on with
no warning. If he put too much strain or stretched the area, it would lock up and spasm too. That
5
had been occurring since 2012. He was previously taking medication for the issue but no longer
took it because the opiates became an issue.
¶ 10 Mahan went to a chiropractor once a week for an adjustment. He stated that the treatment
would relieve a little bit of the pressure, but only on the day he went. He could not afford to go
every day. Additional stress in the affected area made it burn more. If he pushed too much, like
moving furniture in his house, it would spasm and put him down for the day. He compared the
spasms to being tased. They would lock him up completely, he could not breathe and he could not
move until the spasm ceased.
¶ 11 At the time of the hearing, Mahan worked a desk job selling modular homes. Prior to that
he was a police officer for five and half years. He stated there were parts of the police job he could
do, which included report writing and patrolling for at least an hour. However, when it came to
putting a person in handcuffs, Mahan stated that if they fought him, they would be able to get
away. He did not feel that he would be able to protect the public if an altercation occurred. Nor did
he believe that he would be able to help a fellow officer in need. He would not be able to run, chase
a suspect, or tackle a suspect. Mahan explained that lifting was also part of the job. If someone lay
down on the ground and would not go to jail, typically the officer would pick them up off the
ground and put them in the back seat of the patrol car. He could not do that. He stated that typically,
while on patrol, the officer was alone. Mahan did not believe that climbing was a factor in police
work. Mahan stated that running or having a fight with a suspect would be the biggest problem.
¶ 12 Mahan agreed that he had a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) in 2018. The results from
that testing indicated that he was unable to return to the full duties of a police officer. He stated
that FCE took four or five hours. He also participated in an FCE performed in 2024 after receiving
a referral from Physician Assistant, Jennifer Alexander. The 2024 FCE lasted the same amount of
6
time. He stated that at the beginning of the FCE, he sat in a room and did things with his hands,
moving blocks from one side of a box to another. He stated that it seemed like a hand-eye
coordination test. As the day went on, he started doing more physical things like going up and
down steps and lifting things. He further explained that a physical therapist watched the program
and took notes.
¶ 13 Mahan agreed that he was examined by Dr. Chintan Sampat in Joliet, Illinois. Mahan
testified that the physician spent 10 minutes with him. The physician asked him a few questions,
had him touch his toes, walk heel to toe, balance on his heels, and balance on his toes. That was it.
He was not asked to lift anything, carry anything, perform activities to get his heart rate up, or do
anything strenuous in the 10 minutes of evaluation. The physician did not ask him what his job
duties as a police officer involved. Mahan told the physician that he did not think he could return
to the job if he had to handle an altercation with anyone.
¶ 14 Mahan testified that he wakes up with a pain level of four every day. Depending on his
activity, it will go up and come back down, but it is never lower than a four. He woke up every
time he moved. He stated that if a chair did not have a backrest he could only sit for 5 or 10
minutes. If the chair had a back, he could sit there for a couple of hours as long as he could fidget.
¶ 15 On cross-examination, Mahan agreed that he was no longer taking any prescription
medications for his condition. He also stated that he no longer took any nonprescription
medications. His only prescription medications, which were Lithium, Adderall, and Cymbalta,
were not related to his injury or his back pain. He was only receiving medical treatment from the
chiropractor. He continued to work for the same company as he did at his prior hearing before the
Board. His salesman job consisted mostly of sitting at his desk. He could draw up floor plans, help
a customer pick out colors, and order the items. There were also modular homes on site that he
7
would show to potential customers. The only other employee was the owner of the company. He
stated that he would run errands for his boss, if possible. Mahan disagreed that he ever cut the
grass, explaining that they used a lawn care service for that work. He agreed that he had used a
weedwhacker at his place of employment and at his home. He disagreed that he had ever used a
sledgehammer to drive in stakes as part of his employment. He agreed that he told Dr. Sampat that
his pain level could be as low as two. Mahan could not recall, during his 2024 FCE, if he took in
the job description of a Marion, Illinois, police officer or if the FCE administrators looked online
at the website to determine the job description. He also explained the 100-pound lifting
requirement to be an officer was the threshold weight for any heavy-duty job description, not a
medium- or light-duty job. He stated that most people weighed more than 100 pounds and if he
had to pick them off the ground and put them in a squad car, it would be more than 100 pounds.
Mahan stated that he did not provide any 100-pound number during the FCE and agreed that the
100-pound limit was not part of the Marion police job description either.
¶ 16 Mahan agreed that he read Dr. Sampat’s report, which stated the evaluation was 20
minutes. He disputed the length of time. He agreed that he also performed some twisting and was
asked if he experienced any pain while the physician manipulated his torso. Mahan stated that he
had not worked any other job, except as the modular home salesman, since the prior hearing. He
agreed that he was requalified to shoot his firearm annually and performed the requalification in
September 2024 at the local range. He stated that he still had a FOID card, was qualified to carry
a firearm, and remained friends with some of his former police officer peers. One of them was
Billy Lannom, with whom he had been friends since junior high school. He agreed that Lannon
provided him with the copy of the recording of the board meeting that was addressed earlier at the
meeting. He stated that he had the recording for about two months before he provided it to his
8
attorney. When he got the tape, he listened to it. He did not immediately hand it over to his lawyer
because he did not want anyone on the Board or the Board itself to face any repercussions about
it. He eventually turned it over to his lawyer because he was “worn down and tired of getting beat
up on it.”
¶ 17 Mahan stated that he knew everyone, but the new member (Tom Woods) on the Board. He
considered the president of the Board to be a close friend. He also used to consider Henry a friend
but stated that he did not think Henry liked him anymore. He hoped that everyone on the Board
was going to be fair and objective in their decision making. He agreed that the Board should make
their decisions based on the evidence and testimony presented.
¶ 18 The hearing officer questioned Mahan about the prescriptions he was taking. Mahan stated
that he took those prescriptions for ADHD and bipolar disorder with manic depressive episodes.
The hearing officer asked Mahan to stand up and asked him what was on the front of Mahan’s
shirt. Mahan replied that it said “Zumba.”
¶ 19 Mahan’s counsel declined further direct examination. On cross-examination, Orsey asked
why Mahan wore that shirt and Mahan stated that he bought the shirt after he heard the recording
so he could wear it to the hearing. Following Mahan’s testimony, his counsel rested.
¶ 20 The evidence submitted at the hearing consisted of the 2012 Board minutes awarding
disability, Dr. David Lange’s January 2012 independent medical examination (IME) report, Dr.
Bernard Rerri’s 2012 IME report, Dr. Rerri’s January 14, 2021, and February 9, 2021, reports, the
12 exhibits from the 2016 hearing, Dr. David Robson’s 2017 IME report, Dr. Joseph Yazdi’s 2018
IME report, Dr. Yazdi’s 2020 IME report, the Marion police officer job description, the FCE
performed on February 14, 2024, chiropractic records from September 22, 2022, to December 4,
2023, Jennifer Alexander’s medical records, correspondence to Dr. Sampat, Dr. Sampat’s July 29,
9
2024, IME report, Dr. Sampat’s curriculum vitae, Dr. Sampat’s September 11, 2024, deposition,
and the circuit court’s November 24, 2021, judgment.
¶ 21 The 2012 meeting minutes revealed that despite the Board’s ability to obtain three
physician reports, they declined the opportunity to obtain a third report, after the first two
physicians to examine Mahan found that he was disabled from working as a police officer. The
reports included one from Dr. Lange addressing the T1-2 disc lesion that was symptomatic on the
left side. The MRI revealed a tiny herniation to the right at the T2-3 level and a “rather large
osteophyte was present to the left, essentially filling the midzone for the left T1 nerve root.” Dr.
Lange found that “it was reasonable to assume his mechanical parascapular pain on the left is due
to the T1-2 lesion” and the “intermittent parasthesias on the left similarly are due to the spur in the
T1-2 nerve root canal.” Both surgical options were rejected by the physician who found that Mahan
had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). Dr. Lange further found that while Mahan
was not totally disabled from all employment, he was disabled from performing police work, and
recommended Mahan find alternative employment where no violence or heavy lifting was
required.
¶ 22 Dr. Rerri’s 2012 report revealed the same defects seen on the MRI by Dr. Lange, and Dr.
Rerri also found the defects to be the cause of Mahan’s complaints. Dr. Rerri also rejected surgical
options. Dr. Rerri found Mahan was disabled as a result of his injury and believed he was capable
of light duty and sedentary physical activities that would not involve lifting more than 20 pounds,
repetitive testing and bending of his spine, and activities involving violence or a sudden increase
in physical activities. Dr. Rerri opined that due to the episodic and unpredictable symptoms, Mahan
would do best with duties that did not require a constant level of heightened preparedness. Dr.
10
Rerri stated, “I consider his disability level permanent with little prospects for little improvement”
and recommended that Mahan not return as an active-duty police officer.
¶ 23 The Marion police department job description revealed that officers generally worked four
10-hour shifts but based on manning and emergencies, overtime and off shift hours might be
required. The officer “[m]ust have the physical ability to perform duties of a Patrolman” and
operate “independent of constant supervision.” The duties listed on the job description included
responding to calls for service in a timely manner, providing service to the public as needed,
monitoring and enforcing traffic laws, providing traffic direction and control after accidents,
providing zone coverage as ordered, conducting “house watch” and “business checks” as
requested, maintaining equipment, preparing reports, reporting evidence and concerns regarding
law violations, and performing all other duties to be assigned by the city. Essential job functions
included preventing crime, preventing accidents, responding to all call for emergency help,
identifying and assisting in criminal apprehension, providing back up for other officers in need of
help, being vigilant of individuals regardless of how harmless a situation may appear, initiating
use of non-lethal means of apprehension, when appropriate, safely operating a vehicle in a high
speed situation, keeping personal safety in mind when pursuing on foot, and maintaining
awareness of the public and their need to feel safe and secure. The Marion police department
qualifications further stated that the candidate “[m]ust qualify for age and physical ability
requirements set forth by the Marion Police and the Fire Board and the State of Illinois.”
¶ 24 Dr. Ripperda’s January 22, 2016, report noted that Mahan’s pain had not changed
significantly since the time of the injury. The report noted that Mahan’s description of his
symptoms was consistent with the MRI findings from 2011, which showed an osteophyte complex
left of the T2-T2 area of the spine. The physician found this was an atypical area of the spine to
11
suffer injury or develop osteophytes given Mahan’s age. The physician further opined that he
would not consider Mahan to be disabled from any occupation, but he would require a job that
permitted frequent scheduled changes of positions and possibly short (1-2 minute) unscheduled
breaks as frequently as every half hour or so.
¶ 25 The 2016 materials also included Dr. Robson’s January 11, 2017, IME report. Mahan
complained of mid-back pain described as aching, stabbing, and burning, in nature. The physician
opined that Mahan incurred a temporary injury in 2011 but did not incur any permanent injury or
disability that prevented him from performing his duties as a police officer. His opinion did not
find any herniation on the 2012 MRI and contended that the osteophyte seen would take years to
form and the 2011 injury caused only a temporary strain and exacerbation due to his underlying
pre-existing condition. Dr. Robson opined that Mahan was physically able to perform the duties
of a police officer.
¶ 26 The evidence also contained an IME report from Dr. Yazdi dated June 17, 2018. Mahan
complained of burning and sharp pain, as well as paresthesia between the shoulder blades that were
constant on the left side and intermittent on the right side. The pain was ranked as a 5/10 in severity,
which worsened with lifting that would cause spasms to spread to his chest and difficulty breathing.
Dr. Yazdi saw no difference between the 2010 and 2011 MRI films. Dr. Yazdi opined that neither
MRI demonstrated any type of pathology that would prevent Mahan from full duty work as a police
officer.
¶ 27 A subsequent report from Dr. Yazdi, dated August 24, 2020, which addressed the circuit
court judge’s comments stemming from the 2018 report. Dr. Yazdi continued to opine that Mahan
was capable of full duty police work.
12
¶ 28 The February 14, 2024, functional capacity evaluation revealed that “Mahan demonstrated
the ability to perform 71.4% of the physical demands of his job” as a Marion police officer. The
return-to-work items that Mahan was unable to achieve included occasional squat lifting,
occasional power lifting, occasional shoulder lifting, occasional bilateral carrying, gross motor
coordination, forward reaching, static balance up off the ground, power test 1, sit and reach (13.8
inches) power test 2, one minute sit up test and power test 4, 1.5 mile run in 15 minutes and 24
seconds. The report found that Mahan presented a Waddell score of 0 out of 5, which would
suggest negative Waddell sign 1 and the potential for reliable pain reports during functional testing.
The report found that Mahan demonstrated the ability to perform within the medium physical
demand category based on the U.S. Department of Labor and the Dictionary of Occupational
Titles, which was below his job’s demand category. The report noted that Mahan’s job as a Marion
police officer was classified as a heavy physical demand job. The report further noted that Mahan
demonstrated consistent effort throughout 80% of the testing, which “would suggest Mr. Mahan
put forth full and consistent biomechanical and evidence based effort during this evaluation.” The
FCE found that Mahan’s reported pain ratios were reliable 100% of the time, which suggested that
pain could have been considered a limiting factor during functional testing.
¶ 29 Chiropractor Kelly Chullen’s records indicated that Mahan continued to complain of
moderate sharp pain and contained the chiropractic adjustment procedures provided to Mahan at
each appointment. The records spanned from September 22, 2022, through December 7, 2023.
Medical records from Jennifer Alexander were also provided. Those records were dated January
29, 2024. At that visit, Mahan requested an FCE. Alexander provided the referral.
1
“ ‘Waddell findings’ (or ‘Waddell signs’) are the findings of clinical tests that are performed to identify patients whose back pain is not organic, i.e., more likely to be of psychological origin.” Cassens Transport v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, 2021 IL App (2d) 200662WC-U, ¶ 12, n.1. “A negative Waddell finding indicates that the patient’s reported pain is likely organic, not psychological.” Id.
13
¶ 30 On July 12, 2024, the Board’s attorney requested an IME with Dr. Sampat. All of the above
records were forwarded with the correspondence. The evaluation was held on July 15, 2024. Dr.
Sampat opined that Mahan’s injury was “not a competent mechanism of injury to result in any
disability.” The physician found that Mahan had “fully recovered from the disability sustained
from the simple soft tissue strain of the thoracic spine sustained on May 20, 2011.” Dr. Sampat
further opined that Mahan could return to full and unrestricted police officer duties. With regard
to the 2024 FCE, the physician stated the testing was “a static test over one day, but Mr. Mahan
presents with a normal neurological examination and has full range of motion of his spine with
only subjective complaints but no objective abnormal findings.” He stated that Mahan was no
longer disabled based on his 20-minute examination of Mahan and two hours reading the records.
He opined that Mahan was physically able to perform the duties of a police officer.
¶ 31 Dr. Sampat’s deposition was taken on September 11, 2024, and he testified that he was a
board-certified orthopedic surgeon with a subspecialty in the treatment of people with spine
problems. He agreed that he performed an IME on Mahan on behalf of the Marion Police Pension
Board. He summarized his report findings. He explained that an FCE was a test where a person
went to a physical therapist and was asked questions about their injury and symptoms and then
underwent a series of physical exam tests that included bending, lifting, twisting, sitting, standing,
and carrying things to determine the patient’s functional capacity. While that occurred, the
therapist would also ask about pain and measure blood pressure and heart rate because normally
an increase in pain results in an increased blood pressure or heart rate. Dr. Sampat noted that
Mahan showed that he put forth consistent effort for only 80 percent of the test. He stated that
during his testing he performed Waddell sign testing on Mahan; he further stated that Waddell
signs would suggest symptom magnification or malingering. He found two during his testing,
14
which included a pretend twist of the spine which elicited a pain response from Mahan and
touching his spine which caused Mahan to jump off the table. He opined that those were
exaggerated responses and were Waddell signs found during the examination. He agreed that the
FCE showed normal psychodynamics, meaning that Mahan put forth full effort and gave reliable
pain scores based on the McGill Pain Questionnaire and Ransford Pain Drawing.
¶ 32 Dr. Sampat testified that Mahan incurred a minimal type of injury and “there was no
competent mechanism of injury to cause a long term disability for 13 years.” The previously
performed MRI and imaging studies showed chronic mild arthritic changes, which were normal
for someone Mahan’s age. He had a normal neurological exam and showed a couple of Waddell
signs suggestive of symptom magnification on exam. He stated that “[g]iving him the benefit of
doubt, worst case scenario would be that he did have a strain of the spine” but “[t]here was nothing
broken.” He further stated, “There was no herniated disk or any type of neurological problem.” He
agreed with several of the doctors who previously examined Mahan who stated there was “no
reason for long term disability in this case.” He agreed that Mahan was fit for duty and could return
to full unrestricted police duties.
¶ 33 On cross examination, he confirmed his belief that Mahan only incurred a strain as a result
of his work accident. He explained that the strain was a temporary condition which typically caused
about 12 weeks of inflammation. During that time, Mahan could not work as a police officer, but
after the pain and inflammation were gone in 6 to 12 weeks, Mahan would have been back to his
baseline state where he was working as a police officer. He opined that Mahan was at maximum
medical improvement (MMI) three months after the incident. He explained that MMI was that
Mahan was biologically “at his baseline state where he was functioning as a police officer before.”
He did not know if Mahan’s current symptoms were the same as the 12-week post injury time
15
because he only asked about the current symptoms. Dr. Sampat reviewed Dr. Yazdi’s report and
agreed that Mahan’s symptoms were the same as seen during Dr. Sampat’s exam. He stated that
he did not know how long Mahan’s 2024 FCE lasted but expected it lasted between two and four
hours. He agreed that Mahan’s FCE was listed as 80 percent consistent but disagreed that the
therapist considered that a reliable test. He said, “You should ask the person that did it. I would
not consider that fully reliable. I would say that’s 80 percent reliable.” He stated that the FCE
finding that the test suggested Mahan “put forth full and consistent biomechanical and evidencebased effort during the evaluation” did not make sense to him because Mahan was only 80 percent
consistent.
¶ 34 Dr. Sampat was asked about the 2018 FCE but stated he was not provided that document.
Dr. Sampat stated that he was not aware that the 2018 FCE report concluded that 100 percent of
Mahan’s reported reliability pain ratings suggested pain was a limiting factor and found that
Mahan was capable of only performing a medium physical demand level occupation. Dr. Sampat
stated that based on his review of the Marion police department description, Mahan could do all
duties required of a Marion police officer. He did not know where that description would be
classified by the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. He did not know if the Marion police
department job description was a medium level job. He stated that in his mind, “I consider [a
patrolman’s job] to be a very heavy job because he has to do all kinds of things as a police officer”
and opined that Mahan was “capable of doing everything from that perspective and everything
that’s on his job description.” When asked what the age and physical ability requirements set by
the Marion Police and Fire Board and State of Illinois were, Dr. Sampat responded, “I know that
he met those requirements when he was working before the injury, and a minor injury would only
cause minor inflammation” like he previously discussed. He stated, “I don’t know the exact
16
physical ability *** I do not know the exact age and physical ability requirements set forth by the
Marion Police and Fire Board and the State of Illinois.” He agreed that he did not ask the Board
for any other document that might outline the physical requirements.
¶ 35 Additional evidence included an April 13, 2021, report from Dr. Rerri that stated Mahan
was his patient in July 2012. At that time, both he and Dr. Lange opined that Mahan’s injury would
keep him from performing all the duties of a police officer and the injury was permanent in nature.
They also concluded that surgical intervention had a great likelihood of “failure and furthering the
damage to the thoracic area.” Dr. Rerri evaluated Mahan again on January 14, 2021, and requested
that new films be taken and physical therapy be considered; however, Mahan’s health insurance
interrupted that plan when his pension was terminated and those did not occur. Based solely on
the January 14, 2021, meeting Dr. Rerri again opined that Mahan had not recovered from the
injury, the injury remained permanent in nature, and that Mahan was unable to perform all the
duties of a police officer.
¶ 36 A copy of the March 16, 2018, FCE was also included in the record. It stated, “This job
specific evaluation was performed in a 100% kinesiophysical approach and Mr. Mahan
demonstrated the ability to perform 81.6% of the physical demands of his job as a Police Officer.”
The report indicated that the unsuccessful return to work test items included occasional squat
lifting, occasional power lifting, occasional shoulder lifting, occasional bilateral carrying and gross
motor coordination. The report classified Mahan as demonstrating the ability to perform medium
physical demand work based on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, noting that Mahan’s “job
as a Police Officer is classified within the ‘HEAVY Physical Demand Category.’ ” The sit and
reach test found he could only reach 4.5 inches, which was short of the required 15 inches. He
performed 15 sit-ups in 38 seconds “prior to mechanical deficit due to mm spasm and pain at upper
17
thoracic region.” His heart rate increased and was comparable to the 6 out of 10 pain level
expressed. He attempted to bench press 172 pounds as required but failed to complete on any
repetition and experienced spasms and pain in the intrascapular region. As to the run requirement,
Mahan was able to run .35 miles in 8.5 minutes, which was classified as an “avoid” job simulated
activity as indicated by his increased heart rate.
¶ 37 Additional medical records from Peggy Boyd, CNP, Elizabeth Eversmann, 2 and Jennifer
Alexander, from 2012 to 2014 did not address Mahan’s ability to work as a police officer. The
records were for routine treatment of, inter alia, sinusitis, depression, coughs, headaches, sleep
apnea, and left shoulder pain. Copies of the April 4, 2019, circuit court order reversing the Board’s
2018 decision and the February 3, 2023, appellate court decision were also included in the record.
¶ 38 After the acceptance of the evidence, the parties provided closing argument and the Board
adjourned to executive session following Henry’s motion to adjourn that was seconded by Beasley
Wright. After 47 minutes, the Board returned and the hearing officer stated, based on his presence
with the Board during the adjournment, that a motion to terminate Mahan’s benefits should be
made. Henry made the motion and Beasley Wright seconded the motion. Board members
Swafford, Henry, and Beasley Wright voted in favor of termination; Board members Thompson
and Woods voted against the termination. Thereafter, the hearing officer terminated the benefits
and stated a written order would follow.
¶ 39 The April 9, 2025, written order again determined that Mahan was no longer disabled by
finding the FCE was unreliable based on the report and testimony of Dr. Sampat. The order further
found, citing Grissom v. Board of Education of Buckley-Loda Community School District No. 8,
75 Ill. 2d 314, 320 (1979), that Mahan’s motion to removed trustees Beasley and Henry due to
2
No qualifications of Eversmann were found in the record.
18
prejudicial statements was properly denied because Beasley and Henry’s statements were merely
“thoughtless and indiscreet” and “made months prior to the hearing.”
¶ 40 Mahan timely appealed the Board’s decision to the Williamson County circuit court. After
briefing the issues, the parties presented oral argument on December 23, 2025, and the court took
the matter under advisement. On December 31, 2025, the circuit court affirmed the Board’s
decision. Mahan timely appealed.
¶ 41 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 42 On appeal, Mahan argues that the Board’s decision should be reversed because the hearing
officer’s denial of Mahan’s motion to remove two of the Board members was erroneous and
deprived him of due process due to an unfair hearing. He further argues that the Board’s decision
to terminate his police pension benefits was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Board
disagrees with both assertions and requests affirmation of its decision.
¶ 43 We start with Mahan’s claim that the Board’s decision, regardless of any due process issue,
was against the manifest weight of the evidence. In administrative review cases, our role is to
review the decision of the agency, not the decision of the circuit court. Marconi v. Chicago Heights
Police Pension Board, 225 Ill. 2d 497, 531 (2006). The findings of fact made by an administrative
agency are considered “prima facie true and correct.” 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2024); see also
Collura, 113 Ill. 2d at 373. On appeal, we do not reweigh the evidence or resolve conflicting
evidence. Kouzoukas v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago,
234 Ill. 2d 446, 463 (2009). Our review of the Board’s decision to terminate Mahan’s pension
because he is no longer totally disabled is reviewed under the manifest weight of the evidence
standard. Robbins v. Board of Trustees of the Carbondale Police Pension Board Fund, 177 Ill. 2d
533, 538 (1997); Mahan, 2023 IL App (5th) 210426, ¶ 31. “ ‘An administrative agency decision
19
is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident.’ ”
Wade v. City of North Chicago Police Pension Board, 226 Ill. 2d 485, 504 (2007) (quoting
Abrahamson v. Illinois Department of Professional Regulation, 153 Ill. 2d 76, 88 (1992)). Our
review of the Board decision determines whether the credible evidence, as weighed by the
administrative agency, supports the agency’s findings. Id. at 504-05.
¶ 44 The Board’s conclusion that Mahan’s pension should be terminated was two-fold. The
Board found that Dr. Sampat was credible and the 2024 FCE was not credible relying highly on
the Waddell signs found during both examinations. While both Dr. Sampat and the FCE found
Waddell signs, the ultimate outcomes in the 2024 FCE and Dr. Sampat were conflicting, with the
2024 FCE finding that Mahan could only work a medium duty job and Dr. Sampat concluding that
Mahan was capable of performing all of the duties of a police officer. As noted above, it is not our
function to resolve conflicting evidence. Collura, 113 Ill. 2d at 372.
¶ 45 We find that the Board’s conclusion that Mahan was no longer disabled from being a
Marion police officer was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The undisputed evidence
revealed that Mahan was injured in the line of duty in 2011. Two physicians, Drs. Lange and Rerri,
reviewed Mahan’s October 16, 2011, MRI and diagnosed a tiny herniation on the right at the T2-3 level and a large osteophyte on the left that filled the midzone for the left T1 nerve root. Both
physicians concluded that surgical intervention was too risky of an option to be viable for Mahan
and opined that he was at maximum medical improvement (MMI) 3 and permanently disabled.
3
In Illinois, factors to be considered in determining whether a claimant has reached MMI “include: (1) a release to return to work; (2) the medical testimony concerning the claimant’s injury; (3) the extent of the injury; and (4) ‘most importantly,’ whether the injury has stabilized.” Mechanical Devices v. Industrial Comm’n, 344 Ill. App. 3d 752, 760 (2003) (quoting Beuse v. Industrial Comm’n, 299 Ill. App. 3d 180, 183 (1998)).
20
¶ 46 Despite this incontrovertible evidence, Dr. Sampat testified that Mahan’s initial medical
condition was merely a “strain” that would have healed within 6 to 12 weeks. As noted above, the
initial diagnosis was not a strain, it was a herniated disc at T2-3 and a large osteophyte pressing
on the nerve root at T1 for which no surgical intervention was recommended due to concerns of
making the condition worse. “A police officer’s entitlement to disability benefits is contingent
upon his or her continued disability” and benefits may only be terminated if the officer’s “has
recovered from the disability.” Mahan, 2023 IL App (5th) 210426, ¶ 30 (citing Peacock v. Board
of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, 395 Ill. App. 3d 644, 652 (2009)). It is difficult to
comprehend how Dr. Sampat could address whether Mahan remained disabled from his original
physical condition when Dr. Sampat’s report and testimony revealed that he disputed the actual
initial injury that was the basis of the initial disability finding.
¶ 47 Regardless, the basis of the Board’s decision was that Dr. Sampat’s opinion was more
persuasive “because he considered the actual job requirements” Mahan would perform as a Marion
police officer, as opposed to the general requirements established by the United States Department
of Labor. Unfortunately, while Dr. Sampat testified, and his report concluded, that Mahan was not
totally disabled from performing the physical requirements for Marion police officers, the basis of
his opinion was contrary to Illinois law. While it is clear that Dr. Sampat reviewed the job
description, it is equally clear that neither Dr. Sampat, nor the Board, questioned the duties on the
job description for which no additional information was provided.
¶ 48 One of the statements in the Marion police department job description states “that the
candidate “[m]ust qualify for age and physical ability requirements set forth by the Marion Police
and the Fire Board and the State of Illinois.” The actual physical ability requirements for either
Marion or the State of Illinois were not listed in the job description. When questioned about the
21
requirements during his deposition, eventually Dr. Sampat confirmed that he did not even know
the physical demand level for an Illinois police officer, although he opined that the job would most
likely be classified as a heavy physical demand level job, and never addressed the Illinois physical
requirements for law officers.
¶ 49 The Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board (ILETSB) was created by the
Illinois Police Training Act (50 ILCS 705/1 et seq. (West 2024); 50 ILCS 708/5 (West 2024)). The
ILETSB conducts the Law Enforcement Intern Training Program (Program) and has the authority
to establish enrollment limitations. Id. § 10. In order to apply for the program, a person must “meet
the minimum criteria established by the Board that includes, but is not limited to, physical fitness
standards, educational standards, psychological standards, 21 years of age, of good character, and
not convicted of a felony offense or other crime involving moral turpitude ***.” Id. § 15.
¶ 50 The Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board established minimum
physical and educational requirements for all interns in the Program. See 20 Ill. Adm. Code
§ 1725.101 (eff. June 23, 2023). Every intern is “required to perform and successfully complete
all of the Board’s physical fitness (POWER) tests in the sequence delineated in this Section.” Id.
§ 1720.30(h). The POWER test includes the (1) sit and reach standard, (2) one minute sit-up
standard, (3) bench press standard, and (4) 1.5 mile run standard all of which are defined in
Appendix A of the regulations. Id. §§ 1720.30(h)(1)-(4); Id. § 1725.Subpart C (Appendix A) (eff.
June 23, 2023). The same physical fitness standards are also found in the Illinois Police Training
Act. See Id. § 1720.Appendix A (eff. June 23, 2023).
¶ 51 The appendix provides the required test results for each applicant, based on age, sex, and
weight. See Id. § 1725.Appendix A. It also explains the importance of each test. The sit and reach
test is a “measure of the flexibility of the lower back and upper leg area,” which was “an important
22
area for performing police tasks involving range of motion and is important in minimizing lower
back problems.” Id. The sit up test was a “measure of the muscular endurance of the abdominal
muscles,” which was important “for performing police tasks that may involve the use of force”
and “maintaining good posture and minimizing lower back problems.” Id. The bench press test
was to determine “the amount of force the upper body” could generate, and the run was “to measure
the heart and vascular systems’ capability to transport oxygen.” Id. This test was “an important
area for performing police tasks involving stamina and endurance” as well as “to minimize the risk
of cardiovascular problems.” Id. 4 More specifically here, we are unaware of why those same
physical fitness requirements for new or intern police officers would not be applicable to a police
officer returning to the force following a line-of-duty injury.
¶ 52 Here, both the 2018 and 2024 FCE were based on Illinois police department physical
fitness requirements and included the POWER tests required by the regulations. In 2018, Mahan
performed the FCE at 100% effort and, based on the test results, was only able to sufficiently
perform a physical demand level of medium for employment. In 2024, due to findings made during
the 2018 testing, some of the required testing was eliminated. Mahan was 43 years old at the time
of his examination with Dr. Sampat and the year of his most recent FCE. Based on the physical
fitness requirements, Mahan was required to achieve a 12 inch result on the sit and reach test, 24
sit-ups in one minute, the ability to bench press 72% of his body weight and run 1.5 miles within
15 minutes and 24 seconds. During neither the 2018 FCE, which revealed 100% cooperation and
4
This court may take judicial notice of readily verifiable facts if doing so will aid in the efficient disposition of a case, even if judicial notice was not sought in the trial court. Kramer v. Ruiz, 2021 IL App (5th) 200026, ¶ 32 n.3. Here, we take judicial notice of the Marion police department’s application which contains the same fitness tests as the regulations. See https://cityofmarionil.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2025/10/MPD-Application.pdf (last viewed July 28, 2026).
23
effort, nor the 2024 FCE, which revealed 80% cooperation and effort, was Mahan able to perform
the POWER test that was included during the 2018 and 2024 FCEs.
¶ 53 Equally at issue is the lack of evidence supporting a conclusion that Mahan could perform
work at a heavy physical demand level. During both the 2018 and 2024 FCEs, Mahan was only
able to provide effort comparable to a medium physical demand level job. The FCE classified the
job of a police officer as a heavy physically demanding job. Although Dr. Sampat was unaware of
the official classification for a police officer position under the Dictionary of Occupational Titles,
he too testified that a police officer job was a very heavy physically demanding job. While Dr.
Sampat opined that Mahan was malingering based on Waddell signs seen during both his
evaluation and the FCE, his opinion fails to address Mahan’s inability to perform at a physical
fitness level greater than medium when full effort was provided and no limitation for either pain
or malingering was seen in 2018. Considering all the evidence in the record, and the fact that the
Board erred in relying on Dr. Sampat’s opinion to support its decision that Mahan was not disabled,
we conclude that the Board’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 54 Mahan also argues that the hearing officer erred in denying his motion to exclude Board
members Beasley Wright and Henry. He argues that the denial of the motion rendered the hearing
unfair and amounted to a due process violation. The Board disagrees and states the hearing
officer’s finding that the statements were “at most ‘thoughtless and discreet’ but [did] not show
bias or prejudice” was correct.
¶ 55 Due process guarantees of an impartial tribunal are equally applicable to administrative
proceedings. Collura, 113 Ill. 2d at 369. “In order to establish the bias or prejudice of an
administrative decision maker, a claimant must show more than the mere possibility of bias or that
the decision maker is familiar with the facts of the case.” Danko v. Board of Trustees of City of
24
Harvey Pension Board, 240 Ill. App. 3d 633, 641 (1992). “The claimant must demonstrate that the
decision maker is not ‘capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own
circumstances.’ ” Id. at 642 (quoting Grissom v. Board of Education, 75 Ill. 2d 314, 320 (1979)).
While we presume the Board was objective and fairly judged the case, “a claimant may show bias
or prejudice ‘*** if a disinterested observer might conclude that the administrative body, or its
members, had in some measure adjudged the facts as well as the law of the case in advance of
hearing it.’ ” Id. (quoting A.R.F. Landfill, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 174 Ill. App. 3d 82, 89
(1988)). The entire decision will fail if one decision maker is not completely disinterested. Id.
¶ 56 In this case, four statements were made on remand when the issue of retroactive pay was
placed before the Board. Three statements, based on the context provided, addressed “winning”
the case the next time it was heard, Mahan’s capabilities, and the Board’s disapproval of the
appellate court’s decision to award benefits. The fourth statement did not provide the context. As
disinterested observers, we cannot conclude that Terrance Henry and Tammy Beasley Wright did
not prejudge the claim.
¶ 57 The comments regarding Mahan jogging or teaching Zumba show a strong prejudice of
Mahan’s capabilities, the same thing the Board would be addressing at the next disability hearing.
When it was determined that Mahan had to come into sign paperwork, Henry stated that, “I bet
he’ll come in jogging,” which was followed by laughter. The context for the “probably teaching
Zumba” comment is worse. As noted above, the conversation started with Orsey advising the
Board that no special meeting would be called to address the appellate court decision and that once
the Board approved the payment of retroactive benefits, the check would be issued. Thereafter,
instead of recognizing the Board’s responsibility to issue payments to disabled police officers,
Henry stated, “He must have a bill to pay” with Beasley Wright making a similar comment of,
25
“That’s probably what it is, yeah,” and Orsey then agreeing with Henry and Beasley Wright.
Thereafter, an unidentified speaker stated, “Well, I’m surprised he’s not here.” Orsey replied,
“Saying hand me the check?” Henry then stated, “Yeah. That’s what I’m saying. It sounds like—
it sounds like he’s got a bill to pay.” Orsey agreed and stated he was “surprised he’s not here
today.” An unidentified speaker stated they would get the check ready and stated, “He’s probably
not able to be here.” Orsey stated that “he’s probably working at his other job and was interrupted
by Henry who stated, “Teaching Zumba someplace.”
¶ 58 First, whether Mahan had bills to pay is irrelevant to the Board obligation to issue
retroactive benefits when its previous finding of no disability is overturned by a reviewing court.
Second, although Henry was well aware of Mahan’s job selling modular homes from the previous
hearing, he ignored those facts and instead claimed that Mahan’s job was teaching Zumba. Once
again, the statement reveals a clear indication that Henry does not believe that Mahan was disabled
either at the last hearing or would be disabled for any future hearing. The comments also show a
strong dislike by the Board of both Mahan, personally, and the Board’s requirement to pay the
retroactive benefits.
¶ 59 Finally, the remaining comment was made during the vote to issue the retroactive benefits.
At that time, Beasley Wright voted yes to issue the benefits, but stated her affirmation was “under
protest.” Such comment shows both a lack of decorum of the judicial process as well as a lack of
professionalism of a Board member.
¶ 60 While it is undisputed that these statements were made a year before the current hearing
was held, it must also be understood that the statements were made over two years after the hearing
that terminated Mahan’s benefits on March 10, 2021. Equally concerning, is the fact that Beasley
Wright was more concerned about “going for broke” to ensure they “won” at Mahan’s next
26
hearing, despite the fact that no evidence for that hearing had been developed. Such statement
reveals a blatant disrespect for the required impartiality of the Board and undermines the fiduciary
duty between a pension board member and the pension beneficiaries. See 40 ILCS 5/1-109;
Marconi, 225 Ill. 2d at 543.
¶ 61 While Henry and Beasley Wright assured the hearing officer that they would confine their
decisions in the current case based on the evidence presented, the statements are difficult to accept
given the evidence presented. As noted above, the Board concluded that Dr. Sampat’s opinion was
more persuasive than the FCE, of which only the latter was based on the statutory physical fitness
requirements in Illinois. We agree that the statements by Henry and Beasley Wright were
“thoughtless and indiscreet.” However, the statements, when considered in context, reveal an even
higher level of bias and prejudice against Mahan and the issue of his disablement, than if taken out
of context. To accept that Henry and Beasley Wright extinguished their bias for purposes of the
hearing borders on the incredulous. Accordingly, we find that Mahan was denied due process by
the Board based on Henry and Beasley Wright remaining on the Board panel and suggest their
removal from the panel for any future hearings involving Mahan.
¶ 62 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 63 For the above stated reasons, we find that the Board’s decision to terminate Mahan’s
pension benefits was against the manifest weight of the evidence and Mahan’s due process rights
were violated by allowing Henry and Beasley Wright to remain on the Board panel.
¶ 64 Reversed.
27
Mahan, Joshua v. Marion Police Pension Board, et al., 2026 IL App (5th) 260066
Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Williamson County,
No. 25-MR-21, the Hon Amanda Byassee Gott, Judge, presiding.
Attorney Erik Kirkpatrick of Belleville, for appellant
for
Appellant:
Attorney Dennis Orsey of Granite City, for appellees
for
Appellees:
28