Four independent medical exams challenged the officer's injury claims – and the board sided with them
A Wisconsin appeals court ruled that a pension board can reject an independent hearing examiner's recommendation when denying an employee's disability retirement claim.
The decision, handed down on March 18, 2026, by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, affirmed the denial of Duty Disability Retirement benefits to Benjean F. Lara, a 17-year veteran of the Milwaukee Police Department who was injured on the job in September 2019.
Lara hit his head while working at an MPD facility and was treated for a concussion. He was later evaluated by a range of specialists and began ongoing treatment with Dr. Gerald Nora, a physician specializing in brain injury rehabilitation, who treated him for a mild traumatic brain injury tied to the workplace incident.
In April 2021, Lara applied for duty disability retirement benefits under the Milwaukee City Charter, which provides benefits to employees permanently and totally incapacitated as the result of an on-duty injury. Four independent medical examinations were conducted between November 2019 and April 2022. Each reached the same conclusion: Lara was not disabled as a result of the workplace injury. The explanations varied – one examiner pointed to a mood disorder, another to pre-existing psychological factors, a third to possible malingering, and a fourth to non-credible symptom reporting – but the bottom line was consistent.
The Medical Council recommended denial, and the Pension Board accepted that recommendation in July 2022.
Lara appealed through the municipal administrative review process. An independent reviewer first examined the medical evidence and reports in the record and concluded that Lara's injuries were not a result of the fall, recommending that the denial be affirmed. Still dissatisfied, Lara requested an administrative appeal hearing. An independent hearing examiner conducted a two-day hearing, heard from multiple witnesses, and found Lara eligible for benefits. The Pension Board pushed back, returning the report for reassessment over concerns about factual errors and the examiner's handling of the medical evidence. The examiner reviewed the record again and stood by his recommendation.
The Pension Board disagreed. In August 2023, it issued a final determination denying Lara's claim, citing three problems with the examiner's reports: the dismissal of multiple experts who opined that Lara was malingering, factual errors in the examiner's findings, and the conclusory nature of both reports.
Lara challenged the denial in court, raising four arguments – that the Pension Board lacked authority to act as the final decision maker, that it missed a statutory deadline, that it improperly sent the case back for reassessment, and that its reliance on inconsistent medical reports was unreasonable.
The Court of Appeals rejected all four. It found that under Wisconsin law, the Pension Board – not the hearing examiner – holds final decision-making authority, as long as it did not participate in the initial eligibility determination. The court concluded the Medical Council, not the Pension Board, made that initial call, and that the Pension Board's role in accepting the Medical Council's recommendation was merely ministerial.
On the missed deadline, the court treated the statutory 20-day window as a guideline rather than a hard requirement, noting that disability benefits are calculated retroactively from the date of application, so the delay did not result in harm to Lara.
The court also found the Board acted within its authority when it sent the examiner's report back for a second look. It noted that the examiner's report was not a decision but a report to the decision maker, and that the Board followed proper procedure by consulting with the examiner and then explaining its reasons for departing from the examiner's findings in its written final determination.
On the question of evidence, the court held that the collective weight of the four independent medical examinations, including live testimony from one of the examiners, was enough to support the denial – even though the reports disagreed on the underlying cause of Lara's condition.
The court did acknowledge one concern raised by Lara: the Pension Board, the City of Milwaukee, and the Employees' Retirement System appeared as co-respondents throughout the proceedings and were all represented by the City of Milwaukee City Attorney's Office. However, because Lara did not present evidence of an actual conflict, the court declined to act on it.
