Rojas v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission
406 Ill. App. 3d 965
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Rojas filed an August 17, 1999 workers’ compensation claim alleging left arm/shoulder injury.
- Arbitrator dismissed the case for want of prosecution February 6, 2003 after no appearance at a status call/trial date.
- Claimant was advised to reinstate within 60 days of dismissal; multiple reinstatement efforts followed, with hearings set and missed.
- Arbitrator denied reinstatement May 200?4 (Nov. 18, 2004) for delay and lack of good cause; no timely petition to reinstate.
- Commission affirmed and adopted the Arbitrator’s denial on September 25, 2007.
- Claimant sought circuit court review; employer moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under 19(f)(1) (timely filing and proper proof of payment of probable record cost).
- Circuit court denied dismissal (October 29, 2008) and later confirmed Commission decision (July 2, 2009); claimant timely appealed.
- Issue raised sua sponte: whether circuit court had jurisdiction; court concluded it lacked jurisdiction due to failure to timely file proof of payment of probable cost within 20 days of notice of the Commission’s decision.
- Court vacated circuit court judgment and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction | Rojas filed summons and paperwork within 20 days | Foell Packing; proof of payment was not timely | Lacked jurisdiction; dismissal of appeal. |
| Timeliness and sufficiency of proof of payment of probable cost | Payment made timely; no-f ee drop box filing valid | Payment not timely; no affidavit of timely payment | No jurisdiction; failure to prove payment within 20 days invalidates review. |
| Effect of no-fee drop box filing on docketing and summons | Drop box filings ab initio vest jurisdiction | Filing must be accompanied by timely fee payment and case number | Not dispositive; jurisdiction still lacking due to untimely payment proof. |
| Adequacy of circuit clerk’s handling of docketing and summons | Clerk error caused delay | Procedural requirements control; error not excused | Irrelevant; jurisdiction requires timely payment proof. |
Key Cases Cited
- Esquivel v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 402 Ill.App.3d 156 (2010) (jurisdiction requires timely payment proof or affidavit within 20 days)
- Kavonius v. Industrial Comm'n, 314 Ill.App.3d 166 (2000) (statutory 20-day rule governs review jurisdiction)
- Beasley v. Industrial Comm'n, 198 Ill.App.3d 460 (1990) (failure to comply with 20-day 19(f)(1) destroys jurisdiction)
- Wolfe v. Industrial Comm'n, 138 Ill.App.3d 680 (1986) (discussed as potential law-of-the-case issue regarding jurisdiction)
- Bracy v. Industrial Comm'n, 338 Ill.App.3d 285 (2003) (vacate judgment for lack of jurisdiction under 19(f)(1))