Case Summary
**Case Summary: Cronholm v. Board of Trustees of the Lockport Township Fire Protection District Firefighters' Pension Fund, Docket No. 3083700**
**Court**: Illinois Appellate Court
**Date**: [Insert date of decision if available]
**Background**:
In the case of Cronholm v. Board of Trustees of the Lockport Township Fire Protection District Firefighters' Pension Fund, the petitioner, Cronholm, challenged a decision made by the Board of Trustees concerning the eligibility and calculation of his pension benefits from the Firefighters' Pension Fund. The core issues revolved around the interpretation of applicable pension statutes and whether the decisions made by the Board of Trustees aligned with statutory requirements.
**Facts**:
- Cronholm served as a firefighter for the Lockport Township Fire Protection District and sought to receive pension benefits upon his retirement.
- After submitting his application, the Board of Trustees conducted a review of his service record and contributions to the pension fund.
- Cronholm disputed the Board's decision, which allegedly miscalculated his years of service and the corresponding pension benefits owed to him.
**Issues**:
1. Whether the Board of Trustees properly interpreted the pension eligibility criteria and service credit calculations as per Illinois pension laws.
2. Whether the Board's denial of additional service credits claimed by Cronholm was justified based on the evidence presented.
**Ruling**:
The Appellate Court reviewed the Board's findings, including the evidence presented during the Board's hearings and the statutory criteria for pension benefits. The court examined both procedural and substantive aspects of the Board’s decision-making process.
**Outcome**:
The Appellate Court upheld the decision of the Board of Trustees, affirming that the calculations and determinations made regarding Cronholm's pension benefits were lawful and supported by substantial evidence. The court found that the Board acted within its authority and correctly applied the relevant pension laws in assessing Cronholm's service credit.
**Conclusion**:
This case confirms the discretion afforded to pension boards in evaluating eligibility and benefit calculations, emphasizing the importance of adherence to statutory guidelines in pension fund administration. The court's ruling reinforces the need for applicants to present clear and conclusive evidence when challenging pension determinations.
**Key Takeaway**:
The Cronholm case illustrates the judicial support for pension boards in their decision-making processes, particularly in matters related to the interpretation of pension laws and the adjudication of benefit claims.