*1 Gould, supreme The refers Gould. report made respect proceedings,
discussing obligations the statement: fifty report filed within that the should be requirement
“The governs as left in days was the statute of the date award proceed report except to all cases where the failure reporter to ings been caused has furnish failure Gould, neglect party seeking the review.” report, and not at 477-78. Ill. The to the Commission. reweighing presented We are appellant. disposition diligence part issue on the discusses The timely request transcript. There for review and Commis- was a The court responsibility transcript. reporter sion had the to furnish Act. an section 16 of the employee per Commission specific in a order denied the motion dismiss. Commission weight an against the manifest of the evidence or Its adding requirement Our a new abuse discretion. decision will judicial edict.
One matter needs addressed. The states that other to be facts or is a timely filing transcript prereq “The of such statement of (306 jurisdiction” App. Ill. obtaining uisite to the Commission’s 1075), argue that paragraph, and in the next “Contreras does not ***” 1076). (306 jurisdiction lacked 3d at Can we ignore jurisdiction argued by parties? even if not question that there no Apparently answer is no. the effect of this decision is jurisdiction. pertaining issue ALEXANDER,Appellant, et THE INDUSTRIALCOMMISSION
FRANK (Wil-Fred’s Company,Appellee).
al. Construction Division) (Industrial 1 — 98 — 1628WC First District No. Rehearing August Opinion July denied 1999. filed *2 Marszalek, Marszalek, A. J. Steven Globis and James both Marszalek & Chicago, appellant. for Kane, Nancy Doyle, Doy Ltd., appel- Harrington, Chicago, Jo & for lee.
JUSTICE delivered the of the court: opinion RAKOWSKI
Regarding oral before the Illinois Industrial Commis (the Commission), sion of the Workers’ Compensation part: requests “In either provides pertinent Act the event argument, had panel oral before a of 3 members of the Commission ***. A decision of the Commission approved by shall of Commissioners 305/19(e) (West 1996). hearing.” case, 820 ILCS oral requested and had before a of three commissioners. However, issued, term the time the Commission’s decision expired. remaining had commis one commissioners agree decisions. separate were unable on a result and wrote sioners commissioner, argument, A who was not at oral replacement pur and decision concurred one of the decisions (1972). Is the Ill. 2d 137 suant that, under appropriate We conclude Commission’s decision valid? circumstances, sufficient reliable evidence there is is. Where ’ commissioner(s) deci- departing conclusively establish record commissioner(s) may writ- sign replacement sion in the case, however, there Zeigler. In the instant ten com- departing how the in the record to establish insufficient evidence matter. therefore remand decided the We missioner concerning taking purpose for the limited commissioner’s vote.
BACKGROUND for Claimant, application adjustment filed an mason, cement 2, on his back that occurred December injury claim for an lower employer. lifting plywood he sheets of for 30-pound while was condition, treatment, did his improve After which conservative result, disectomy. As a he was laminectomy claimant underwent a return only capacity and could not able to function at to medium concluded that claimant was occupation. his former arbitrator Claimant permanently partially disabled to extent 50%. requested was heard before argument, petition his review Hagan Commissioners Acting Commissioner Ketter Tansor on term Hagan’s October six-month expired issued decision on on December 1996. The Commission its January majority opinion, Ketter 1997. Commissioner wrote *3 Tansor affirming the arbitrator’s decision. Commissioner adopting dissent, was lengthy stating filed a he would find that claimant Kane, totally Acting who permanently and disabled. Commissioner concurring Hagan’s vacancy, specially fill a appointed was issued opinion, stating that he had in oral or participated not decision, but of the had reached decision that a the de- Hagan’s departure signing and he was Zeigler so issue. cision the decision could court, alleging the Com- sought review the circuit Claimant comply it did mission’s decision was void because not with 19(e). decision alternatively argued Claimant that the Commission’s totally against he disabled finding permanently was not was disagreed The circuit court weight manifest of the evidence. decision was both contentions. It concluded that Commission’s found controlling, and then proper which it found disability was denying permanent total that the Commission’s decision manifest against weight of the evidence.
ANALYSIS
(1972),
“The
affidavit
show that
the decision of the
Industrial Commission
was made
the same Commissioners who
heard the oral
and considered the evidence. The fact that
the written
formalizing
document
prepared
decision was
after
three of the Commissioners who rendered the decision left the of
fice is not fatal to the decision. Neither is the fact that the written
document
signed by
three new Commissioners who had not
heard
argument.”
Zeigler,
According to the court: requires
“The Act
that after
hearing
on review ‘the Commis
sion shall file in
thereon,
its officeits decision
immediately
and shall
send
to each
attorney
copy
his
of such decision and a
notification of the time when it was filed.’
require
[Citation.] These
ments of the Act
performance
relate to the
of ministerial functions
may
which
performed by
be
the members of the Commission who
may not have been members who made the
The making
of the decision is an act of the
Commission. The
by preparing
document,
filing
it in the Com
mission’s
sending copies
officeand
parties
thereof to
required
as
by the Act are likewise
acts
the Commission independent of the
making
act of
the decision.
being
continuing
[citations],
body
administrative
why
there is no reason
these acts
performed by
composed
of the same
*4
members.”
At the time of Zeigler, in provided, pertinent part: review, “After hearing upon such the Commission shall in its thereon, officeits decision immediately and shall send to each attorney copy or his of such decision and a notification of the 138.19(e). time when it par. was filed.” Ill. Rev. Stat. ch.
1085 in provides, It now However, was amended. in part: pertinent argu- argument, party requests “In the event either the Commission 3 members of ment had shall be before ma- approved by a decision,of ***. A the Commission (Emphasis add- hearing.” present at such jority Commissioners (West 1996). ed.) 305/19(e) 820 ILCS amendment, have appellate court cases 1984 Since the In as amended. Zeigler to section application discussed the (1987), Comm’n, the court 156 Ill. 898 Jarrett is by a stating signing that new commissioner merely Zeigler, cited to (1987), Ill. App. In 158 3d 1025 Hoegger v. Industrial proper. a new quoted allowing the statute and found that the court amended reasoning apply is Both sign proper. commissioner cases however, helpful, particularly the new The cases are not statute. if specifically impact, any, because neither addresses language. amended in
Here, validity is as in of the Commission’s decision in decision valid Zei- question. finding The basis showing departing com- was the fact there evidence how the gler that acknowledged missioners had voted. While the court in the circuit it prior was not record to review stated: validity
“In
to determine the
of the action of the Industrial
necessary
that
Commission was
to resort
evidence other than
necessary
sup
in
facts
contained
the record on review. The
plied by
jacket. In
ex rel. Madison
[State
the affidavit and the file
Airport
Wrabetz,
(1939),]
Co. v.
it was
Wis.
N.W
presented
held that evidence dehors the record could be
illegal
part
court
acts or
on
to show
or unauthorized
conduct
prove
case
is
the re
Commission.
our
the evidence
offered
is,
verse,
legality
validity
of the action or conduct of
circuit
question
When a
is raised
Industrial Commission.
Industrial Com
to whether the action or conduct of the
as
unauthorized,
then evidence other than
mission is invalid or
may
contained in the
on
be considered
record
review
Zeigler,
fact was This by known.1 has unaffected the 19(e). follow, amendment to section For the reasons that we conclude reasoning Zeigler applicable that the is to the version 19(e). section In Zeigler, supreme the court concluded that the affidavit and jacket the validity demonstrate the They Commission’s conduct. that “show the decision of the Industrial Commission was made the by same Commissioners who oral argument heard the and the considered added.) evidence.” (Emphasis Zeigler, clearly 51 Ill. 2d 142. This at is 19(e) requires. what amended section now If similar evidence ad is case, on in duced remand the instant the Commission’s decision is Zeigler. Further, valid the court that Zeigler reasoned formalizing the decision into a written document was a ministerial function, need not by which be undertaken the same commissioners Zeigler, Thus, who reached the decision in the case. Ill. 2d at 142. making the is one decision function —the crucial function —and document memorializing that decision into a written is a func second tion—a ministerial function. When argument requested Commission, before the section
19(e) requires be by heard panel three-member should approved by majority decision of the commis- sioners This hearing. is the approval refers It state requires. does not that the three commissioners who heard oral sign written order memorial- izes the “The preparing the decision 1 Acting special Commissioner Kane’s concurrence states: Argument for Oral “This case scheduled before a three panel including
member of the Commission members Commis- Ketter, Acting Hagan sioner Commis- heard, Arguments sioner Tansor at which time Oral were waived Subsequent Arguments Oral denied. 19[9]6, departure on Hagan of member December agreement as set panel members had reached to the result opinion, forth in Decision and but written this no formal Hagan appoint- and issued while member held her still ment. question I in
Although was not a member of the denied, Arguments heard, time and I did not Oral waived or agreement by majority reached in participate in above, provisions Supreme forth in of the of the facts set ***(1972) Commission, Ill. 2d 342 Court in Industrial of the signature of a Decision a member authorize Accordingly, signing in I am participate who did not this Decision. may it [sic] in order the issue.” this Decision sending cop officeand document, filing in *** indepen parties are acts thereof ies 51 Ill. 2d at making the decision.” dent of the act legislature amended that when the We also take notice interpreta- Zeigler decision and it was aware of the ap- Thus, aware that under it was given by supreme court. tion permitted commissioners supreme circumstances propriate If the sign the written order. not heard oral who had permitted legislature change procedure had intended to Commis- “signed by majority terms surely have used the it would major- by a hearing” “approved” rather than present at such sioners clearly implies that Indeed, of the term ity. “approved” use decision is valid absence legislature intended that a Commission *6 signatures argument. who heard oral those many in to resulted sure, To the 1984 amendment (a) (b 1) rewritten, substantially changes. Paragraphs were both — provisions relating to “committee on arbitra- including deletion (a). rele- paragraph paragraphs tion” in The amendment rewrote the expedited compensation. provided It for an hearings vant to receive concerning hearing provisions and separated before arbitrator hearings provisions concerning hearings before the arbitrator from Commission. Finally, changed the structure before the the amendment relating interest. of the Commission and the section Never- rewrote rea- theless, reasons, that the rule and foregoing for the we conclude soning Zeigler apply the amended statute. case, however,
In from the Commission does the instant record Hagan any Acting not contain evidence of Commissioner voted how However, in in expired. Zeigler. before her term This was also true In the circuit on review. such evidence was introduced in court same, required court should have instant amended. particularly language of section as Indeed, suggest give some replacement we commissioner departed basis for the statement of commissioner voted. how Acting Clearly to support there is some evidence or internal document Acting Ha- as to how Commissioner Kane’s statement confidence gan public evidence further voted. Reference such would the need for evidence procedure and eliminate on review. dehors the record to be introduced the circuit court
CONCLUSION Zeigler, present, evidence as in show When there is reliable commissioner, a replacement commissioner the decision of the instant may sign the case, we do not only Acting have evidence. The evidence Com- Hagan’s missioner Acting decision is Commissioner Kane’s hearsay statement in the specially concurring opinion. This is not sufficient reliable evidence the dictates of which contained Commissioner Gaines’ jacket affidavit and the corroborative entries.
Because the circuit court did not require Com Hagan’s vote, missioner we remand to the circuit for the limited purpose of receiving such additional ju evidence. We otherwise retain risdiction of the cause to address merits of claimant’s appeal. See 366(a)(5) 134 Ill. 2d R. (allowing this court to any make order that the may require). case See also Inter-Insurance Exchange Chicago Motor Club Employers Co., Mutual Casualty (1975) (“A reviewing court has power, determining without disposing of case to remand it court for further proceed lower ings if the record is not in reviewing condition for the court to decide presented the question justice parties”). to all the Should the circuit court conclude valid, that the Commission’s decision is we will then claimant’s weight address manifest of the evidence issue. Should the circuit court find the invalid, Commission’s decision is it shall vacate said decision and remand to the a hearing de novo.
Reversed remanded with directions.
McCULLOUGH, EJ., HOLDRIDGE, J., concur. *7 RARICK,
JUSTICE dissenting: 19(e) Section Compensation of the Workers’ provides Act pertinent the part: “In event either requests argument, oral argument shall be a panel had before of 3 of the Com members mission ***. A decision of the approved by a majority present hearing.” of Commissioners 820 ILCS 305/ (West 1996). In oral requested was and had a panel before of three commissioners. At the time the Commission’s issued, however, decision was term of of the one the commissioners expired. had remaining agree commissioners were unable to commissioner, on a result A separate and wrote decisions. third who present argument, was not Zeigler to Comm’n, (1972), signed 51 Ill. of I 2d one the decisions. believe the of a comport issuance decision under such circumstances does not 19(e), is, the decision that of section unambiguous language at the present commissioners majority a approved by not was this instance applicable in Secondly, I do not believe hearing. 19(e). I of section quite an different version interprets as it earlier therefore dissent. commissioners, heard five
In claimant’s cause was before issued, of any three Before decision was a the Commission. commission After these three expired. commissioners’ terms the five argued Claimant issued its decision. replaced, ers were the Commission it was invalid because was that the Commission’s decision argument. support In va who heard oral by the commissioners decision, an affidavit employer submitted lidity of Commission’s that, stating commissioners from one a That decision was Commission had reached decision. departure, the that it was custom jacket. the file The affidavit stated then entered on decision, it on the file ary for the commissioners reach a write a jacket, reporter type copy and then the court the decision so have rejected parties. The court claimant’s could be sent invalid, finding the decision that the Commission’s decision was by heard oral made commissioners who was same According 2d at 142. to the considered the evidence. Ill. document, it filing a preparing of decision sending independent to the the act copies parties thereof a Such functions did not have to be un
making
decision.
ministerial
same
who reached
dertaken
commissioners
case.
the decision in At time of by majority decision to the com approved be Instead, hearing. provided missioners at the the statute than a of the Commis hearing was to had before not less in its hearing, After such the Commission should file its decision sion. copies parties. office and forward to the The statute was silent as required The current version approve who was approved decision be unambiguously requires that Commission argument. at oral While by majority of the commissioners legislative history why is not from a this amend apparent review of the made, “Changes necessary inquiry. ment is not to our purpose deliberately made wording phrasing presumed are have been [citation], ***, an it is legislature presumed and when amends act respect.” Forest legislature change that the intended the law in that (1994). 436, 440 City Erectors v. Industrial give effect to the construing statutory provisions, we are to *8 1090 legislature. intention In re Application County Collector
Du Page County Judgment Delinquent Taxes the Year for for for (1998). Ill. 2d 181 237 language Because the legislature used is legislative intent, best indication of we must first look the words of the 181 statute. Ill. 2d at 244. When the words themselves are unambiguous, plain ordinary meaning of the words will be given effect resorting without to extrinsic aids for construction. Board Education School District No. 205 v. Illinois Educational of Rockford (1995). Board, Labor Relations 165 Ill. “[OJnly 2d 87 where the statutory language is unclear may beyond a court look it.” Denton v. (1997). Civil Service 176 Ill. 2d 149 Again, provides:
“In the event either party requests argument, oral argu- such panel ment shall be a had before of 3 members of the Commission *** ***. A decision of the approved by Commissionshall ma- jority present hearing Commissioners ***.” 820 ILCS (West 1996). The language unambiguous. It is axiomatic that the words “at such hearing” Further, refer oral had in the matter. language “decision approved majority Commis- sioners at present hearing” requires the three present members at oral approve the final decision. 305719(e)(West 1996). legislature ILCS could not have stated any clearer.
I find further for support my position analogous under 22(c) (145 22(c)) Supreme Court Rule governing R. appellate 22(c) court decisions. Rule provides: judges
“Three participate every in the decision of necessary the concurrence of two shall be to a decision.” Ill. 2d 22(c). R. 22(c) The Illinois Supreme interpreted Court has require Rule judges when one of the on a panel departs from the the remain ing judges must concur in the decision to be Proc valid. (1997). Co., tor v. Upjohn similarity 175 Ill. 2d be Given 22(c) 19(c), tween Rule and section I find the supreme court’s reasoning Proctor instructive. instance,
In this the Commission’s decision issued more than one subsequent expiration month of Acting Commissioner Ha- gan’s affidavits, term. in the record any Nowhere is there jacket entries, any other indicia of Commissioner Ha- gan’s decision support ruling Zeigler. Acting which would under Kane, signed Hagan’s stead, not who and, thus, approve could not the decision in accordance 19(e). not remained could who The two commissioners invalid. issued was outcome; consequently, the decision agree on the at the commissioners who Because jurisdiction decision, have no I believe we did hearing approve *9 appeal therefore dismiss I would appeal. to entertain to enter valid decision. the cause to the Commission remand COLWELL, J., this dissent. joins in ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, JAMES OF THE STATE OF
THE PEOPLE al., Defendants-Appellants. et PETERSON District 2 — 97 — 0017 Second No.
Opinion August filed