Pletcher v. Village of Libertyville Police Pension Bd., No. 2-24-0416 (Nov. 24, 2025)

Case details
Full caption
Pletcher v. Village of Libertyville Police Pension Board
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Illinois (IL)
Court
Illinois Supreme Court
Decided
Nov. 24, 2025
Disposition
Motion Granted
Majority
Hutchinson (Justice)
Pletcher v. Village of Libertyville Police Pension Board, Not Reported in N.E. Rptr. (2025)2025 IL App (2d) 240416-U © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 IL App (2d) 240416-UUNPUBLISHED OPINION. CHECK COURTRULES BEFORE CITING.NOTICE: This order was filed underSupreme Court Rule 23(b) and isnot precedent except in the limitedcircumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.Bryan PLETCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.VILLAGE OF LIBERTYVILLEPOLICE PENSION BOARD,et al., Defendant-Appellee.No. 2-24-0416|Order Filed November 24, 2025Editor's Note: This decision containsdiscussion of citation references that areincorrect or do not actually exist. These invalidcitations appeared in the original court opinionand have been preserved as written since theyare part of the official record. Any links to theseinvalid citations have been removed.Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County.No. 23-MR-470, Honorable Luis A. Berrones,Judge, Presiding.ORDERJUSTICE HUTCHINSON delivered thejudgment of the court.*1 1 Held: Plaintiff's appellate briefviolates Illinois Supreme Court Rules andwas almost wholly created with the aid ofartificial intelligence. Defendant's motion forsanctions against plaintiff pursuant to IllinoisSupreme Court Rule 375(a) is granted andplaintiff's brief is hereby stricken and the appealdismissed. 2 I. BACKGROUND 3 Plaintiff was hired as a Village ofLibertyville (the Village) police officer onSeptember 15, 2003. On June 12, 2020, he filedan application for not on duty disability pensionpursuant to section 3-114.2 of the IllinoisPension Code (40 ILCS 5/3-114.2 (West 2020))alleging disability based on congestive heartfailure. Plaintiff subsequently withdrew hisapplication and returned to full duty with theVillage. 4 On May 29, 2022, the Village issuedplaintiff a letter of reprimand and placed himon a performance improvement plan for certainviolations of department orders and policies.On July 18, 2022, plaintiff filed his secondapplication for not on duty disability pensionpursuant to section 2-114.2 of the IllinoisPension Code, this time alleging disabilitybased on congestive heart failure, myocarditis,heart failure, and cardiomyopathy. 5 On February 15, 2023, and July 6, 2023,the Village of Libertyville Pension Board (theBoard) held a hearing on plaintiff's application.The Board admitted 27 exhibits into evidenceto which plaintiff did not object. Plaintiff didnot offer any exhibits into evidence.
Pletcher v. Village of Libertyville Police Pension Board, Not Reported in N.E. Rptr. (2025)2025 IL App (2d) 240416-U © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2 6 The evidence adduced at the hearingsshowed that plaintiff had consistently failed tofollow orders from various doctors, leading toexacerbation of his medical issues. Pursuantto section 3-112 of the Illinois PensionCode, the Board had plaintiff examined bythree doctors to determine whether he wasdisabled. Dr. Jason C. Robin, Dr. Dan J.Fintel, and Dr. Dianne L. Zwicki weredeposed and all concluded that had plaintiffremained compliant with his medications, hishypertension would have remained controlledand he would not have developed nonischemiccardiomyopathy. 7 On October 30, 2023, the Board issued itsdecision and concluded that plaintiff had notproven the required elements to obtain a noton duty disability pension pursuant to section3-114.2 of the Illinois Pension Code. The Boardfound, in relevant part, as follows:“The Applicant's hypertensive nonischemiccardiomyopathy is a condition the Applicantcould remedy without significant danger tolife or health or extraordinary suffering. Allthe medical evidence in the record supportsa conclusion the prescribed medicationsoffered a reasonable prospect for relief.The Applicant's refusal to consistentlytake his medications and to stop takinghis medications against the advice of allhis doctors was not reasonable or withinthe bounds of reason. All the medicalevidence supports a conclusion that if theApplicant took his medications that he (1)would not have developed hypertensivenonischemic cardiomyopathy and (2) thathe would recover from his hypertensivenonischemic cardiomyopathy such thathe could perform police duties. Everydoctor testified that but for the Applicant'srefusal to undergo reasonable medicaltreatment, the Applicant would more thanlikely not have developed hypertensivenonischemic cardiomyopathy. Additionally,the Applicant has not testified crediblyregarding his continued use of the prescribedmedications. Therefore, the Applicant is not‘disabled’ with the meaning of the PensionCode, notwithstanding his uncontrolledhypertension, hypertensive nonischemiccardiomyopathy, and two episodes of CHFwhich required hospitalization.”*2 8 On November 30, 2023, plaintiff fileda complaint for administrative review of theBoard's decision. In the brief supporting hiscomplaint, plaintiff cited to several cases thatdid not exist. In its responsive brief, the Boardnoted the nonexistent cases to the trial court.The matter proceeded to a hearing on June 25,2024. Plaintiff attempted to introduce evidenceand exhibits not brought forth in the originalpension board hearings. The Board arguedthat those exhibits should not be allowed atthat stage of the proceedings. The trial courtagreed. Following plaintiff's arguments, thetrial court indicated that upon initial reviewof the evidence, it believed plaintiff had astrong case. However, as plaintiff had failedto introduce any evidence or exhibits to theBoard to support his case, it had to ruleagainst allowing him to introduce that evidenceand affirm the Board's denial of his disabilityapplication. 9 This appeal followed.
Pletcher v. Village of Libertyville Police Pension Board, Not Reported in N.E. Rptr. (2025)2025 IL App (2d) 240416-U © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3 10 II. ANALYSIS 11 After plaintiff filed his brief with this court,the Board filed its responsive brief and a motionfor sanctions pursuant to Illinois SupremeCourt Rule 375(a) and 375(b). The motionalleged various violations of Illinois SupremeCourt Rule 341 for fictitious citations to theadministrative record, citations to nonexistentauthorities, and fictitious holdings from actualauthorities. The Board asks this court tostrike plaintiff's brief, dismiss the appeal,and impose monetary sanctions includingreasonable attorney's fees and costs. It isthrough this lens that we limit our analysis. 12 At the outset, we must note that werecognize that plaintiff is pro se. However,in Illinois, parties choosing to representthemselves without an attorney are “presumedto have full knowledge of applicable court rulesand procedures and must comply with the samerules and procedures as would be required oflitigants represented by attorneys.” In re Estateof Pellico, 394 Ill. App. 3d 1052, 1067 (2009). 13 Plaintiff cites to five cases in his briefthat do not exist. He cites to “Pravdic v.Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois,2013 IL App (1st) 220689,” a nonexistentcase, and quotes the fictitious trial court asholding “when objective medical evidencedemonstrates that hypertension persists despiteappropriate medication regimens, boardscannot attribute this persistence solely tonon-compliance without substantial supportingevidence.” This alleged holding would be quitefavorable to plaintiff's case if it was real. Afterthe submission of his appellate brief, plaintifffiled a motion to correct citation errors. Thiscourt denied that motion. However, for the sakeof fully understanding plaintiff's argument, welook to the case that he claims to containthe favorable holding, Prawdzik v. Board ofTrustees of Homer Township Fire ProtectionDistrict Pension Fund, 2019 IL App (3d)170024. No such quote exists in that case. 14 Plaintiff cites to “Hoffman v. RetirementBoard of Fireman's Annuity, 2020 IL App(1st) 190182,” another fictitious case, for itsalleged holding that “a pension board cannotsimply adopt selective medical opinions whileignoring contrary evidence in the record.”While we disagree with plaintiff's assertion thatthe Board in the present case behaved in sucha manner, we again look to the case plaintiffasserts that he meant to cite in his motionto correct citation errors, Howe v. RetirementBoard of the Fireman's Annuity & BenefitFund of Chicago, 2015 IL App (1st) 141350.In Howe, a firefighter applied for disabilitybenefits after dislocating his shoulder to aid aperson who had fallen on train tracks. Howe,2015 IL App (1st), ¶¶ 8-11 The board denied,explaining the firefighter had not shown hewas performing an “act of duty” as definedby Illinois statute. Id. at 31. The “act ofduty” language was the argument appealed tothis court. See Id. at 39-40. The only realmention of medical opinions is the firefighter'streatment of his dislocated shoulder, where hereceived several types of therapy and threesurgical procedures to remove scar tissue andbone spurs. Id. at ¶14-20. Again, that case doesnot contain the holding that plaintiff claims,even if he really meant to cite it in place of thefictitious case.
Pletcher v. Village of Libertyville Police Pension Board, Not Reported in N.E. Rptr. (2025)2025 IL App (2d) 240416-U © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4*3 15 Plaintiff's next fictitious citing isto “Schoenbeck v. Board of Trustees of thePolice Pension Fund of the Village of OakLawn, 2021 IL App (1st) 200557.” He claimsthat the fictitious court there “specificallyrecognized the cumulative effects of stressfrom police work on cardiovascular health.”Plaintiff goes on to quote this court as notingthat “the physical and emotional demands ofpolice work, particularly when performed overmany years, can be a significant factor inthe development of cardiovascular conditions.”His motion to correct citation errors claims thatthe real case should have been Miller v. Boardof Trustees of Oak Lawn Police Pension Fund,2019 IL App (1st) 172967. A reading of thatcase contains no such language as quoted byplaintiff, nor does the case ever mention heartconditions. 16 Plaintiff cites to the fictitious case of“Pedrick v. Village of Downers Grove, 115 Ill.App. 3d 315 (1983)” to support his assertionthat the Board violated the timeframe forissuing its decision pursuant to section 3-148of the Illinois Pension Code. He maintains thatthis fictitious case held that “a 14-month delaywas found impermissibly long and violatedthe officer's right to a timely review.” Whilethis argument is dubious because section 3-148of the Illinois Pension Code contains notimeframe for issuing a final decision (see 40ILCS 5/3-148 (West 2024), we again look to thecase plaintiff claim he meant to cite, Lambertv. Downers Grove Fire Department PensionBoard, 2013 IL App (2d) 110824. In Lambert,a firefighter applied for an off-duty pension dueto an unhealing knee injury. Lambert, 2013 ILApp (2d), ¶3. The board denied the application,making note that the firefighter's “subjective”statements about his pain, videos admitted intoevidence of the firefighter moving around hishouse, and the firefighter's failure to renewhis paramedic license. Id. at ¶20. That casehas nothing to do with the pension board'stimeframe in issuing a final decision, nor doesit mention section 3-148 of the Illinois PensionCode. 17 Finally, plaintiff cites to the fictitious caseof “Krahel v. Oakbrook Terrace Firefighters’Pension Board, 2021 IL App (2d) 200165.”Again asserting issues with the timeframeof the Board's decision, plaintiff claims thatin this case “the court overturned a denialbecause a 4-month delay in issuing the writtenruling violated the promptness mandate.” Inhis motion to correct citation errors, plaintiffadmits that the case should be withdrawn “asit does not address the legal issues for whichit was cited.” Not only does it not address thelegal issues for which plaintiff cited it, the casedoes not exist at all. 18 Beyond fictitious cases, plaintiff's briefdoes cite to actual cases where he providesthis court with fictitious quotes and holdings.He cites to Bowlin v. Murphysboro FirefightersPension Board of Trustees, 368 Ill. App.3d 205 (2006), and quotes the court asholding “consistent attempts to follow medicaltreatment, even if not perfectly executed,do not justify a finding of noncompliancesufficient to deny benefits.” However, Bowlindoes not support the statement even as aparaphrased argument. In Bowlin, a firefighterapplied for a pension after suffering from twowork-related back injuries. Bowlin, 368 Ill.App. 3d at 206. During application review,the board inquired about a video of the
Pletcher v. Village of Libertyville Police Pension Board, Not Reported in N.E. Rptr. (2025)2025 IL App (2d) 240416-U © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5firefighter white water rafting after the injury.Id. at 208 The firefighter responded that itwas his understanding that he was permittedto engage in household and recreationalactivities that did not exceed weight andphysical limitations. Id. The board denied theapplication, believing the video was proof thefirefighter continued to engage in strenuousactivity. Id. at 209. The court disagreed, notingthat physicians never restricted the firefighterfrom engaging in recreational activities. Id. at212-13. Therefore the Bowlin firefighter wasfollowing the medical treatments of his doctors,not attempting to do so, as plaintiff suggests.*4 19 Plaintiff quotes Johnson v. RetirementBoard of Policemen's Annuity and BenefitFund, 114 Ill. 2d 518 (1986), as holding that“a mere inability to comply with treatmentdoes not negate a disability claim.” However,Johnson does not support this statement evenas a paraphrased argument. In Johnson, a policeofficer was crossing a wet street to assist acivilian when he fell on his arm, resultingin the permanent disability of his right hand.Johnson, 114 Ill. 2d at 520. The officer filed forbenefits and the board denied the claim sincethey believed his injury was not the result of aspecial risk and therefore not an act of duty. Id.at 521. As the court itself stated “the sole issueon appeal [was] whether [the police officer's]injury was sustained as a result of an act of duty,entitling him to duty-disability benefits.” Id. at520. 20 Plaintiff quotes Knight v. Village ofBartlett, 338 Ill. App. 3d 892 (2003), as holdingthat “the mere fact that a condition persistsdespite treatment does not support an inferenceof non-compliance.” Knight does not supportthis statement even as a paraphrased argument.In Knight, an officer suffered from homicidalthoughts after working in an undercoverenforcement task force. Knight, 338 Ill. App.3d at 895-97. After being on leave, the officerwas told to surrender his work attire and wasnot allowed to return to duty. Id. at 896, 899.The officer filed for a disability pension but theboard denied, finding that the officer was notfully disabled. Id. at 899. The court's analysisthen was focused on whether the officer evenhad a disability and, if so, was it a result ofbeing on duty. Id. at 899-905. Non-compliancewas not mentioned in this case. 21 Plaintiff quotes Roszak v. KankakeeFirefighters’ Pension Board, 376 Ill. App.3d 130 (2007), as holding that “a pensionboard cannot adopt the conclusions of theirselected experts while ignoring substantialcontrary evidence.” Roszak does not supportthis statement. In Roszak, a paramedic who hadinjured his back and shoulder during a house-call kept putting surgery off due to insuranceissues. Roszak, 376 Ill. App. 3d at 132-33.After the paramedic had surgery he beganattending physical therapy but had to stop dueto pain. Id. at 134. During the paramedic'sapplication for disability, the board asked himseveral questions they found he was evasiveabout. Id. at 137. Finding the paramedic to bea non-credible witness, the board denied hisdisability benefits. Id. While citing to medicalevidence from their reviewing physicians,the board also discounted the opinions fromthese same doctors that the paramedic wasstill disabled because it “was based on [thedoctors’] subjective determinations of whatthe [paramedic]... had told [the doctors].” Id.at 137-38. The court noted that “the board's
Pletcher v. Village of Libertyville Police Pension Board, Not Reported in N.E. Rptr. (2025)2025 IL App (2d) 240416-U © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.6discounting of [the reviewing] doctor's reportsbased on the applicant's suspect credibility wasan error,” and therefore against the manifestweight of the evidence. Id. at 144. This is adifferent standard that plaintiff is asking us toconsider here. Had plaintiff cited to this casewith a statement regarding an administrativeboard having disregarded medical evidencethat included the self-reporting of the applicant,that may have been applicable. Alas, it isreduced to another misleading assertion byplaintiff. 22 Plaintiff also cites to Jones v. Boardof Trustees of Police Pension Fund ofCity of Bloomington, 348 Ill. App. 3d1064 (2008), and states that “the courtestablished that shift work over extendedperiods can be considered a contributing factorto cardiovascular conditions. Also citing theJones court, plaintiff states “disruption ofcircadian rhythms through extended periods ofshift work can contribute to the developmentand progression of hypertension and relatedcardiovascular conditions.” Neither of thesestatements are supported by Jones, wherecourt's opinion focuses on the phrase “act ofduty” and whether a police officer who hadbeen struck by a van while on patrol was injuredin an “act of duty.” Jones 348 Ill. App. 3dat 1074. There is no mention of hypertensionor related cardiovascular conditions within thetext.*5 23 The final actual case with a fictitiousquote cited by plaintiff is Johnston v. Weil,241 Ill. 2d 169 (2011). Plaintiff assertion thatthe court held “when genetic factors mayinfluence the effectiveness of treatment orthe progression of a condition, these factorsmust be considered as part of a completemedical evaluation” do not align with the actualholding in Johnston. In Johnston, a motherand her parents brought an action claimingthat information obtained by a therapistin connection to child custody proceedingsfell within “confidential communications witha plaintiff” under the Confidentiality Act.Johnston 241 Ill. 2d at 172. There is no mentionof genetics within the case. 24 In addition to the abovemisrepresentations, throughout his briefplaintiff argues that exhibits A-F provideadditional support for his various argumentsregarding the Boards denial of his application.Without delving into the substance ofthese exhibits, plaintiff never introduced thisevidence, or any other evidence, into theadministrative record. “No new or additionalevidence in support of or in opposition toany finding, order, determination or decisionof the administrative agency shall be heardby the court. The findings and conclusionsof the administrative agency on questions offact shall be held to be prima facie true andcorrect.” 730 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2024). Inother words, neither the trial court, nor thiscourt, can entertain exhibits that plaintiff didnot introduce to the Board. Plaintiff is wellaware of this as he tried to introduce theseexhibits to the trial court through his complaintfor administrative review. The exhibits werestricken. The same is true here. We must rejectplaintiff's arguments that rely on these exhibits,which make up the bulk of his appeal. 25 Returning to the fictitious cases and quotescited by plaintiff and discussed above, theywere hallucinated by artificial intelligence (AI).
Pletcher v. Village of Libertyville Police Pension Board, Not Reported in N.E. Rptr. (2025)2025 IL App (2d) 240416-U © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.7The Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District,recently considered this issue and stated:“[T]he Illinois Supreme Court AI policyexplicitly permits the use of AI. However,attorneys must use AI tools wisely. Wereiterate the supreme court's reminderthat ‘[a]ll users must thoroughly reviewAI-generated content before submittingit in any court proceeding to ensureaccuracy and compliance with legaland ethical obligations.’ [Ill. Sup. Ct.,Illinois Supreme Court Policy on ArtificialIntelligence (Jan. 1, 2025), https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois% 20Supreme% 20Court% 20AI% 20Policy.pdf [https://perma.cc/WCE6-WZE5]]. Flagrant and unprincipled use ofAI without ensuring the accuracy of thegenerated response ‘is an abuse of theadversary system’ (Mata [v. Avianca, Inc.,678 F. Supp. 3d 443, 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2023]),as it wastes court resources that would bebetter spent elsewhere.” In re Baby Boy,2025 IL App (4th) 241427, 131. 26 In Baby Boy, the reviewing courtfound that the petitioner's attorney's carelessuse of AI warranted sanctions. The courtthen ordered that the attorney disgorge thepayment that he had received for his services,fined him $1,000, and referred him to theIllinois Attorney Registration and DisciplinaryCommission based on his violation of the rulesof professional conduct. Id. ¶¶ 129-130, 132. 27 Rule 375(a) states as follows:“If after reasonable notice and anopportunity to respond, a party or an attorneyfor a party or parties is determined to havewillfully failed to comply with the appealrules, appropriate sanctions may be imposedupon such a party or attorney for the failureto comply with these rules. Appropriatesanctions for violations of this section mayinclude an order that a party be barred frompresenting a claim or defense relating to anyissue to which refusal or failure to complywith the rules relates, or that judgment beentered on that issue as to the other party,or that a dismissal of a party's appeal as tothat issue be entered, or that any portion of aparty's brief relating to that issue be stricken.Additionally, sanctions involving an order topay a fine, where appropriate, may also beordered against any party or attorney for aparty or parties.” IL. S. Ct. R. 375(a) (eff.Feb. 1, 1994).*6 28 Plaintiff's status as a pro se litigantdoes not excuse his careless reliance on AI.See Holzrichter v. Yorath, 2013 IL App (1st)110287 78 (pro se litigants are presumedto have full knowledge of court rules andprocedures and must comply with them). Wenote that plaintiff attempted to use many ofthe same fictitious cases in the trial courtthrough the supportive brief on his complaintfor administrative review. Plaintiff was awareof the perils of AI-generated research yet choseto use it in a “[f]lagrant and unprincipled”manner anyway. Baby Boy, 2025 IL App (4th)241427, 131. Additionally, many of plaintiff'scitations to the record direct this court to pagenumbers that do not exist, constituting a directviolation of Rule 341(h)(7). See IL. S. Ct. R.341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020).
Pletcher v. Village of Libertyville Police Pension Board, Not Reported in N.E. Rptr. (2025)2025 IL App (2d) 240416-U © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.8 29 On November 6, 2025, this court heldoral argument on this matter. Plaintiff wascontrite when confronted and accepted fullresponsibility for his numerous violations ofour rules and use of AI to generate thefictitious cases. The Board's counsel stoodon its request to strike plaintiff's brief anddismiss the appeal as a suitable sanction forthe violations. As such, we grant the Board'smotion to strike plaintiff's appellate brief anddismiss the appeal. 30 III. CONCLUSION 31 For the reasons stated, we dismiss theappeal. 32 Appeal dismissed.Justices Birkett and Mullen concurred in thejudgment.All CitationsNot Reported in N.E. Rptr., 2025 IL App (2d)240416-U, 2025 WL 3279065End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access