A Wisconsin court has upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Kurt J. Lacina, a former police officer, against the Employes' Retirement System for the City of Milwaukee. The ruling, issued on November 3, 2026, clarifies the rules surrounding medical re-examinations for police officers on disability retirement. This decision affects Lacina and other officers receiving similar benefits, as it confirms the necessity of periodic medical evaluations to maintain eligibility for retirement benefits.

Lacina, who was placed on 90% duty disability retirement (DDR) following a motor vehicle accident in 2020, sought a declaration that he should not be subject to re-examinations by the Medical Panel due to his status. The court's ruling emphasizes the interpretation of the Milwaukee City Charter, specifically regarding the requirements for medical evaluations for disabled police officers.

Background

Kurt J. Lacina served as a police officer in Milwaukee until he was injured in a car accident. Following this incident, he qualified for a 90% duty disability retirement, which provides financial support to employees who can no longer perform their duties due to work-related injuries. According to the Milwaukee City Charter, all DDR beneficiaries must undergo periodic medical examinations to confirm their ongoing eligibility for benefits until they reach a specified retirement age.

The dispute arose when Lacina requested to be excused from these medical evaluations, arguing that he met the criteria for an alternative retirement age due to his years of service. He claimed that the Milwaukee City Charter allowed for exemptions from medical re-examinations for certain beneficiaries, specifically those receiving 90% DDR benefits. However, the Employes' Retirement System denied his request, stating that he was still required to undergo annual evaluations until he reached the minimum service retirement age of 57.

The Ruling

The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin ruled against Lacina, affirming the lower court's decision to dismiss his lawsuit. The court found that the Milwaukee City Charter does not automatically exempt 90% DDR beneficiaries from medical re-examinations. The court stated, "MCC § 36-05-3-c-1-b does not automatically exempt 90% DDR beneficiaries from Medical Panel re-examinations." The court further clarified that the Board has the authority to waive these examinations, but if it does, beneficiaries must submit a report from their personal physician instead.

In addition, the court ruled that the early retirement criteria set forth in the Charter do not serve as an alternative minimum service retirement age for the purposes of medical evaluations. The judges emphasized that the minimum service retirement age is clearly defined as age 57 for police officers and that Lacina did not meet this requirement. The ruling concluded that the early retirement option is an exception to the general rule, not an alternative age for retirement.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for Lacina and other retired police officers in similar situations. The court's decision reinforces the requirement for periodic medical evaluations for those receiving 90% DDR benefits until they reach the defined retirement age. This means that officers in Lacina's position must continue to comply with medical evaluations to maintain their retirement benefits, regardless of their age or years of service.

The ruling also clarifies the interpretation of the Milwaukee City Charter, establishing a precedent that could affect future cases involving retirement benefits for city employees. By affirming the lower court's decision, the court has set a clear guideline on how the Charter's provisions should be understood and applied, potentially impacting the rights of other beneficiaries in the system.

What's Next

Lacina has the option to appeal the court's decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, although it is unclear if he will pursue this route. There are no related cases pending that would directly affect this ruling, but the decision may influence future litigation regarding retirement benefits for city employees.