Joanne Cramer v. State of Illinois

ORDER

SPRAGUE, J. Claimant, JOANNE CRAMER, widow of Chicago Firefighter, Patrick J. Cramer, (hereinafter Claimant), brings this claim pursuant to the Line of Duty Compensation Act, 820 ILCS 315/1 et seq., formerly known as the Law Enforcement Officers, Civil Defense Workers, Civil Air Patrol Members, Paramedics, Firemen, Chaplains, and State Employees Compensation Act, amended by P.A. 93-1047, Section 20, eff. October 18th, 2004.

Chicago Firefighter, Patrick Cramer, (hereinafter, FF Cramer), died of a heart attack on November 15, 2004. Firefighter Cramer was off duty and playing ball with friends when he suffered the fatal heart attack. He had worked within the twenty-four hour period prior to his death, and played an active role in responding to emergency calls. In its investigative report filed October 24th, 2005 the Illinois Attorney General concluded that it is unable to make a recommendation as to whether Chicago Firefighter Patrick Cramer was “killed in the line of duty,” as defined by Section 315/2(2) of the Act, and recommended that a hearing be held in this matter. The Court then referred the matter to a Commissioner who conducted a hearing.

The facts adduced at trial are as follows:

FF Cramer was a 22 year veteran of the Chicago Fire Department who, since the late 1990s, was regularly assigned to the Ford City firehouse located at 76th and Pulaski. The Ford City house was considered to be a relatively slow firehouse, where most calls were ambulance assists, few calls were response to fires. Sunday, November 14, 2004, was FF Cramer’s scheduled day off, however, he was offered and accepted, a day of coveted overtime. Claimant testified that before FF Cramer left for work he was physically fine, except for early symptoms of a cold. He did not on that day, or anytime prior, complain about or receive treatment for, any heart related problems.

FF Cramer reported for duty at 10:00 a.m. on November 14, 2004 and worked until 8:00 a.m. on November 15, 2004. During this tour of duty, his company, Truck 16, responded to several incidents which were detailed by Chicago Fire Department Deputy Fire Commissioner Derrick F. Jackson as follows:

[*266] 1. Two (2) Automatic Alarms: These responses required fire companies to respond to the scene of the alarm. Duties included checking the building for any type of fire or smoke, resetting the alarm to ensure that there were no malfunctions, and returning to quarters after the building was secured. Firefighter Cramer’s specific duties at these incidents were not recorded.

2. One (1) Still Alarm: A Still Alarm calls for two trucks and two engines as well as a Battalion Chief to respond to a scene. The Truck Company may or may not have assisted in leading out a hose line. Other duties would include, but would not be limited to, firefighters ensuring that the building was free of any smoke or fire, and being prepared to battle any type of fire by laddering and ventilating as well as overhauling the building as necessary. Once again, Firefighter Cramer’s specific duties at this fire call were not memorialized.

3. One (1) Still Box Alarm: This was the major fire that Firefighter Cramer responded to on November 14, 2004 at 6921 S. Cornell Drive at 2000 hours. At this particular fire, Firefighter Cramer’s Truck Company was the Rapid Intervention Team (RIT). The RIT Truck is a standby mode to handle rescue operations for firefighters and/or paramedics who may become trapped or lost in a fire scene. Before the fire was extinguished, Firefighter Cramer was deployed, along with others, to ventilate the roof over the seat of the fire. Roof ventilation requires cutting a 4’ by 4’ hole utilizing an eight pound axe and pike pole to cut through various layers of roofing tile, tar, and other material on the structure. This duty requires continuous motion and is extremely physically demanding, on the lungs, heart and muscular system. Dense smoke and gases are exhausted through the roof openings during the process. This task can take a significant amount of time depending on the size of the roof and the number of ventilation openings required for the fire.

There were several other tasks that Firefighter Cramer participated in at this fire. These included (1) raising ladders and placing them back on the truck. This process entails lifting a ladder weighing approximately 200 pounds with another firefighter, positioning the ladder on the building and then removing it from the premises and placing it back on the truck; and, (2) Re-bedding the hose used to fight this blaze which involves constantly pulling 50 foot lengths of hose line to ensure that the hose is properly drained, rolling it [*267] and/or securing it back on the engine in the proper form to prepare for the next alarm.

Wrap up time for this type of fire generally takes approximately 30 minutes after the fire is extinguished.

Claimant presented testimony of Chicago fire Captain Mark Benson.

Captain Benson testified that he was working with Firefighter Cramer on November 14, 2004. FF Cramer and others were dispatched to the fire scene, a three-story multi-unit apartment building, at 69th and Cornell as an RIT (Rapid Intervention Team) for rescue of firefighters as necessary. After the explosion at the site, the Chief put the RIT to work. FF Cramer and another firefighter were dispatched to vent the roof. Under heavy smoke conditions, the firemen opened 4’ x 4’ holes with an axe, a gas powered K-1 saw and pike holes. After the fire was successfully extinguished, the firemen did a final search of the building and area, collection and reload of the heavy equipment.

Captain Benson described the roof work as one of the most physically challenging work jobs in fighting fires. Benson also noted that it is common procedure for the firefighters on the roof to remove their masks for efficiency.

The firefighters often take a blast of smoke when the roof is ventilated. Benson saw FF Cramer before the end of his shift and observed that Cramer looked “spent”.

Claimant testified that on the evening of November 14, 2004, she spoke to her husband at the firehouse, who told her about the serious nature of the fire and told her to watch for the news coverage. On Monday, November 15, 2004 at approximately 8:00 a.m. FF Cramer returned home and told his wife that he wasn’t feeling well. FF Cramer did not return the call of School District 218 where he was a regular substitute teacher. Claimant observed that he “looked terrible” and told his wife he wasn’t feeling well enough to work that day.

FF Cramer spent the day at home resting. In the evening when Claimant returned from work she discovered her husband was not going to go to his regular Monday night recreational basketball league game. At the last minute FF Cramer decided to go because he wasn’t sure if his teammate would be able to attend, and he didn’t want to risk a forfeit for his team. He told his wife he was hoping to sit on the bench. The game had just begun and FF Cramer was participating when he collapsed. His friends called 911 for emergency medical assistance. He was rushed by ambulance to Christ Advocate Hospital in Oak Lawn where he was subsequently pronounced dead by the emergency room physician.

[*268] FF Cramer’s body was transported to the Cook County Medical Examiner’s officer for autopsy. The Report of Postmortem Examination lists the cause of death as a myocardial infarct due to arteriosclerosis. Claimant presented a letter from FF Cramer’s internist, Dr. DeSimone, who had treated FF Cramer for minor unrelated medical conditions prior to his death. Dr.

DeSimone stated that he could not draw a medical conclusion as to Cramer’s cause of death, but suggested that myocardial infarction could have been brought on by extreme stress and physical demand of being a fireman. Nothing in FF Cramer’s medical history indicates symptoms of treatment for high blood pressure or heart related illness.

Claimant made two other claims for benefits in addition to the claim herein. First, a claim was made to Fireman’s Annuity Benefit Fund of Chicago.

A hearing was held and it was determined that FF Cramer’s death was “in the line of duty”, and benefits were awarded. A second claim was made for federally sponsored benefits pursuant to the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefit Act of 2003. After review of the claim it was determined that the circumstances of FF Cramer’s death were sufficient to be covered, death benefits were issued.

LAW

For an award to be granted pursuant to the Act it must be shown that the officer was killed in the line of duty as defined in the Act. The Act provides in relevant part:

“Killed in the line of duty” means losing one’s life as a result of injury received in the active performance of the duties as a law enforcement officer, civil defense worker, civil air patrol member, paramedic, fireman, or chaplain if the death occurs one year from the date the injury was received and if that injury arose from violence or other accidental cause. 820 ILCS 315/2(e).

The Act further dictates that the term, killed in the line of duty, excludes death resulting from willful misconduct or intoxication of the officer.

However, the burden of proof of such willful misconduct or intoxication of the officer. However, the burden of proof of such willful misconduct or intoxication of the officer is on the Attorney General. 820 ILCS 315/2(e). In the instant case toxicology tests were negative and there is no information to indicate intoxication or willful misconduct on the part of FF Cramer.

The unique facts of each case warrant special consideration in determining a “killed in the line of duty” claim. Historically, in cases involving heart attacks, this court has considered the factors as follows:

[*269] Whether decedent was on duty; the number of hours decedent worked shortly before the fatal heart attack; whether decedent was performing strenuous activity at the time or shortly before the fatal heart attack; whether decedent was engaged in the active performance of duties; and whether decedent had any unusual job-related stress prior to the heart attack. In Re Application of Colleen Slain No. 05 CC 2312.

The court has developed an analysis to determine whether a fatal heart attack can be considered an “injury” within the meaning of the Act. In heart attack cases the Court looks for a causal connection between the heart attack and the decedent’s duties. In re Application of Louis P. Cardwell Ill (1991), 44 Ill.Ct.Cl. 288, 289. In deciding whether an award should be granted an effort is made to determine whether the activities the decedent was performing precipitated the attack. Where the decedent was performing strenuous physical activities at the time of the attack, awards are consistently granted. Where the decedent was not performing strenuous physical activities when the heart attack was suffered the court will examine whether the circumstances surrounding the decedent’s duties prior to the attack may have precipitated the attack. In re Application of Smith (1990), 43 Ill.Ct.Cl. 183,186.

In Cardwell, a Chicago Police Officer, assigned to executive security detail, was visiting a friend when he complained of chest pains and collapsed.

He was taken to the hospital where he was pronounced dead of a heart attack.

No evidence was presented to show that decedent was performing strenuous activities at the time of the attack or that his duties had placed him under unusual stress or strain. The Court denied the claim because there was no causal connection between decedent’s duties and his death. In re Application of Louis P. Cardwell III (1991), 44 Ill.Ct.Cl. 288, 291.

Strenuous physical activity is not required. The necessary causal connection can be established by showing that the decedent was under unusual stress or strain. In In re Application of Conklin (1995), the Court granted an award where a firefighter suffered a fatal heart attack less than an hour after testifying in federal court. A board certified medical examiner testified that the stress of testifying contributed to the officer’s heart attack.

Also, in the absence of physical strain at the time of the attack, the court will examine other factors that could have contributed to the attack. In In Re Kolowski (1995), 48 Ill.Ct.Cl. 443, decedent was parking his squad car in the police headquarters parking lot when he suffered a fatal heart attack. Though he was not performing strenuous activities, an examination of his work records revealed that he had worked several twelve-hour shifts in extreme cold in the [*270] days preceding his death. This court found that these factors contributed to his attack and granted an award.

However, in In Re application of Medlicott (1996), 48 Ill.Ct.Cl.405, a firefighter died in his bunk at the firehouse while he was sleeping. Though the decedent was in the middle of his second twenty-four hour shift, he had responded to only one call several hours before. The court found the causal connection to be too remote and denied the claim.

Line of Duty Compensation awards have been granted to officers who died while on-duty but were engaged in physical activities outside the scope of their job. For example, in Ryan v. State (1994), 46 Ill.Ct.Cl. 321, this court granted an award when an on-duty police officer suffered a fatal heart attack while playing basketball in the department gymnasium. In granting the award, the court relied on testimony that indicated that the physical fitness was important to the deceased because the Department indicated physical fitness was necessary for its officers. Id. at 322.

Similarly, in In Re Application of Winchester (1991), 44 Ill.Ct.Cl.232, this court held that a firefighter who died during an impromptu football game played while he was waiting for orders was killed in the line of duty within the meaning of the Act. The court found that firefighters were encouraged to take part in physical activity since it helps maintain the physical conditioning necessary for that line of work.

The instant case differs from Ryan and Winchester because FF Cramer was not on-duty at the time of his heart attack. This Court has previously granted an award when the heart attack occurred off-duty if the evidence established that the decedent encountered strenuous exertion on the job. The court has recognized that “while a heart attack must be triggered by an injury it is not required that the injury be one that is obvious and sudden. The cumulative effect of recent exigent circumstances contributing to a heart attack has been held to constitute injury.” In Re Application of Sparling (1983), 36 Ill.Ct.Cl. 353.

In Sparling, the court granted an award where a police officer suffered a fatal heart attack while he was off-duty. The evidence established that for most of the year prior to his death Lt. Sparling was in charge of two eight-hour shifts due to a shortage of supervisory personnel. Additionally, two days prior to his death, the deceased was in charge of a strenuous tracking operation that covered several miles in hot and humid weather. Also, on the day before his death, decedent was twice required to lift and carry a fire hydrant weighing 200- 300 pounds. The deceased’s doctor presented unrefuted testimony that Lt.

Sparling suffered from coronary artery disease and the physical exertion of the [*271] tracking and the hydrant incidents caused or contributed to his heart attack.

Based on the evidence, this court found that even though the decedent was not on duty at the time of his heart attack the job related exigent circumstances preceding his death were sufficient to constitute a compensable injury within the meaning of the Act. This court also noted that while the deceased suffered from the underlying coronary artery disease, coverage of this act is not limited to healthy persons. Id. at 356.

In this case, decedent FF Cramer was not on duty, or performing strenuous work-related duties at the time of his fatal heart attack. However, FF Cramer had engaged in an extremely strenuous tour of duty, which ended less than 24 hours prior to his death.

The facts established that on November 14, 2004 FF Cramer was awarded an overtime assignment at a firehouse that is much busier than his regular assignment. On November 4, 2004, FF Cramer responded to a series of calls including a “major fire” at 8:00 p.m. As a member of the Rapid Intervention Team, Cramer was required to ventilate the roof by manually cutting 4’ x 4’ holes. The task was described by Deputy Fire Commissioner Derrick F. Jackson as extremely physically demanding on the lungs, heart and muscular system. By his own account, and the observations of both his Chicago Fire Captain and his wife, FF Cramer didn’t feel or look well after the fire and into the next day. On November 15, 2004, FF Cramer declined the opportunity to work as a substitute teacher, and spent the day resting. That evening when FF Cramer attended his regular basketball league game, and upon the first physical exertion, he collapsed and died instantly of a massive heart attack.

The Act and the interpreting case law, clearly provides that Claimant is entitled to an award where it is established that the circumstances and activities performed by decedent while on-duty, precipitated the off-duty attack. The facts and circumstances in this case indicate that FF Cramer’s on-duty activities on November 14, 2004 precipitated his fatal heart attack on November 15, 2004.

Decedent’s death does in fact fall within the parameter of “killed in the line of duty” as defined by statute and interpreting case law.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that based on the foregoing, an award shall be made in favor of Claimant JOANNE CRAMER, pursuant to the Line of Duty Compensation Act, 820 ILCS 315/1, in the total amount of $259,038.00.