The City of Milwaukee faces a legal setback as the Court of Appeals affirms a decision in favor of a former police officer and the Milwaukee Police Association. On February 17, 2026, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s ruling that the City had misinterpreted its own charter regarding duty disability payments. The case was filed by Kurt J. Lacina and the Milwaukee Police Association against the City of Milwaukee and its Employees Retirement System Annuity Pension Board.
Kurt J. Lacina, a former officer with the Milwaukee Police Department, suffered severe injuries in a duty-related accident in 2008. After enduring multiple surgeries and extensive therapy for his injuries, Lacina applied for Duty Disability Retirement (DDR) benefits due to physical injuries but was denied in 2010. He later sought compensation from the State of Wisconsin’s Department of Workforce Development, which awarded him $52,400 for permanent partial disability related to his spine injuries. In 2012, Lacina successfully applied for DDR benefits due to mental stress stemming from depression and psychological trauma associated with his physical injuries and subsequent medication use.
The City argued that these mental stress benefits should be offset by previous worker’s compensation payments received by Lacina for his physical injuries. However, both the circuit court and Court of Appeals disagreed with this interpretation. The courts found that under the Milwaukee City Charter, offsets only apply to concurrent or future payments rather than past compensations already paid out before DDR benefits commenced.
Lacina’s case highlights a complex intersection between physical injury claims and mental health considerations within employee retirement systems. Dr. James Winston, part of the medical panel reviewing Lacina’s application, noted that Lacina’s chronic pain exacerbated his depression—a connection recognized when granting DDR benefits but challenged later by city attorneys seeking offsets based on earlier worker’s compensation awards.
Ultimately, plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment clarifying that any offset should only apply to “payable” benefits rather than those already “paid,” aligning with interpretations favoring future liabilities over retrospective adjustments. The courts ruled in favor of this perspective—an outcome underscoring broader implications for how municipalities manage duty-related disabilities across intertwined physical-mental health spectrums.
Representing their clients were attorneys from local law firms specializing in labor relations and municipal law cases; presiding over proceedings were Judges Pedro A. Colon at circuit level alongside Chief Judge White with Judges Donald & Geenen at appellate review stages under Case ID: 2023AP301.
Source: 2023AP301_Milwaukee_Police_Association_v_City_of_Milwaukee_Opinion_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
