Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Line of Duty Compensation
Download PDF

Patricia R. Deal v. State of Illinois

28 Ill. Ct. Cl. 398 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1972-09-25 No. 00008
Disposition: (No. 00008-Claim denied.) Agency: Hoffman Estates Fire Protection District
Cite as: Patricia R. Deal v. State of Illinois, 28 Ill. Ct. Cl. 398 (1972)
Line of Duty Compensation 28 denied 1970s Patricia R. Deal v. State of Illinois 28 Ill. Ct. Cl. 398 1972-09-25 (No. 00008-Claim denied.) /opinions/v28-p0415-1/

PATRICIA R. DEAL, as wife of DONALD DEAL, deceased, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought compensation for the death of her husband, a volunteer fireman, under the Law Enforcement Officer and Firemen Compensation Act. The court denied the claim because the evidence failed to show that the decedent's death occurred during the active performance of his duties as a fireman.

Claim type: Line Of Duty Death

Statutes cited: Ch. 48, Sec. 282 et seq., Ill. Rev. Stat., 1971; Section 283(a); Section 282(e)

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND FIREMEN COMPENSATION Am-Where

[*399] PATRICIA R. DEAL, Claimant, pro se.

WILLIAM J. SCOTT, Attorney General; SAUL R. WEXLER, Assistant Attorney General, and VINCENT J. BISKUPIC, Special Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND FIREMEN COMPENSATION Am-Where evidence fails to show that decedent’s death occurred during the active performance of duties as a heman claim will be denied.

Bum , J.

This claim, arising out of the death of a volunteer fireman, DONALD DEAL, of the Hoffman Estates Fire Protection District, was filed pursuant to provisions of the “Law Enforcement Officer and Firemen Compensation Act,” Ch. 48, Sec. 282 et seq., 11Z.Rev. Stat., 1971. Claimant, PATRICIA R. DEAL, is the surviving spouse of the decedent and is the lawful claimant under Section 283(a) of the Act.

A hearing in this matter was held by the Court on August 3, 1972. The facts, which are not in dispute, are as follows: DONALD DEAL was a volunteer fireman for the Hoffman Estates Fire Protection District at the time of his death. On August 6, 1970, he reported for a scheduled fire department drill at approximately 9:30 a.m. Prior to the start of the drill, the decedent complained of a nauseous feeling and stated that his arms felt numb. He was instructed to sit down until he felt better. While he was resting, another fireman checked him and found that his condition had not improved. At 9:53 a.m. he was discovered in an unconscious condition and first aid measures were started. He was taken by ambulance to a hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. The death certificate recites that the immediate cause of death was “acute myocardial infarction” with the interval between onset and death “minutes”.

Mrs. Deal testified that her husband had returned home on the morning of the incident at approximately 2:30 a.m.

[*400] complaining of pains in his chest and arms. Upon arising that morning he was still complaining of the same condition. There is no evidence to show that the decedent’s death occurred during the active performance of duties as a fireman, pursuant to Section 28Z(e) of the Act. In fact, the Application for Benefits filed herein as well as the Attorney General’s investigative report and the testimony elicited before this Court all indicated that the decedent had never embarked upon the performance of his duties on the date of his death.

There being no evidence to support a finding that DONALD DEAL was “killed in the line of duty” as defined in the Act, this claim must be denied. It is so ordered and this claim is denied.

Official volume 28 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion between: July 1, 1972–June 30, 1973)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.