*1 ing a peace officer. The of the circuit court of McHenry County is part affirmed in in part. vacated
Affirmed in part and part. vacated in BOWMAN, JJ., McLAREN and concur. ESQUIVEL, Appellant,
HERALDO v. ILLINOIS WORKERS’ (Truck Country Illinois, COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. Appellee). (Illinois Division)
Second Compensation District Workers’ Commission
No. 2 — 09—0122WC Opinion Rehearing filed June July denied 2010. HOLDRIDGE, J. DONOVAN, J., dissenting, joined *2 Rockford, Associates, of & of Jim Black Reynolds, of Law Office Brad A. appellant. for LLP, Chicago, for Emerson, Porter of Yambert &
Kimberly A. of Chilton appellee. of the court: opinion delivered the
JUSTICE HUDSON Claimant, Esquivel, appeals Heraldo for prejudice petition County dismissing with Winnebago court of subject- that it lacked The circuit court found administrative review. failed to because claimant appeal matter to consider the the circuit court to the clerk of establish that he affidavit, pay- showing proof documentation, or an either required by sec- the record on as ment of the (Act) (820 19(f)(1) ILCS Compensation Act tion of the Workers’ 305/ 19(f)(1) (West 2006)). affirm. We Il- of claim with the application adjustment filed his for
Claimant (Commission) on December Compensation Commission linois Workers’ 19(b) (820 ILCS 2, pursuant A section of the Act hearing 2002. to 305/ 2006)) 19(b) (West 18, According to the August 2006. was held on injuries on record, suffered accidental parties agreed that claimant that claimant 13, 2002, respondent and August working while for included causal respondent. Disputed to issues provided timely notice liability for respondent’s connection, injuries, of claimant’s extent (TTD) benefits, prospec- expenses, medical disability temporary total issued on treatment, In a decision penalties. medical tive conditions 1, 2006, the found that claimant’s November arbitrator 13, August accident on causally related to the work ill-being were $16,180.15 in medical accrued Respondent pay was ordered to 2002. benefits, encompassing six TTD expenses and a total of 104 weeks of 29, 2005, weekly rate of through August $391.33. at a periods distinct medical prospective denied claimant’s The arbitrator 30, 2005, August period TTD for the expenses and benefits addition, refused to the arbitrator hearing. through the date of against respondent. penalties assess the Commission. timely petition for review with
Claimant filed a affirming and 2008, a decision 11, the Commission issued On March adopting the decision of the arbitrator and remanding the cause for further proceedings. Commission fixed the record at According claimant, $35. he received the Commission’s decision on March 2008. The record 9, 2008, shows that on April claimant filed in the circuit petition court a review, to the circuit clerk to issue summons to the Commission and parties and a certificate mailing of the summons to the Commission. There is no that, indication the record when he filed foregoing documents, claimant tendered a cost of the record or an affidavit of his at- torney stating that the same had paid to the Commission. On 9, 2008, April the clerk of the circuit court sent copy of the summons to the Commission and respondent and its attorneys by certified mail. The return receipts indicate that the summonses were delivered April
On August 2008, respondent filed a motion to dismiss claimant’s ground administrative review on the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because claimant failed strictly comply requirements set forth in section (820 305/19(f)(l) (West 2006)). the Act ILCS In particular, respondent asserted that claimant failed to file a notice of prob- able cost of the record or an attorney affidavit of his stating pay- *3 ment had been made. 28, 2008,
On October claimant filed a motion to file an affidavit instanter. The attached affidavit was executed by claimant’s attorney 28, on October 2008. Claimant’s attorney 8, 2008, stated that on April he mailed a payable check to the Commission in the sum of for $35 transmitting the record to the circuit court and 9, 2008, April on he petition filed a in review the circuit A copy 8, court. of a April check dated from the law firm representing accompanied claimant the motion and affidavit.
In a opinion 7, 2009, letter January court, dated the circuit considering arguments counsel, the briefs and of dismissed claimant’s petition prejudice. The circuit filing court concluded that the of a receipt or an showing payment affidavit to the Commission of the probable precedent record is a condition vesting to the of subject-matter jurisdiction that claimant failed to satisfy precondition, and that did in not vest court due to comply requirements claimant’s failure to with the of sec- 19(f)(1). 30, 2009, tion On January appeal. claimant filed a notice of appeal,
On in contends that the circuit court erred find- ing that comply jurisdictional requirements he failed to with the set 19(f)(1) forth in section dismissing petition of the Act and in for jurisdiction. Claim- subject-matter for of review a lack administrative to circuit court for to the case this court remand ant asks the merits. of his on determination enjoy general jurisdiction courts are courts of circuit While does subject-matter presumption of presumption the court proceedings, where compensation not apply workers’ v. Industrial jurisdiction. Kavonious special statutory exercises (2000). appeal On from decision App. 3d jurisdic Commission, subject-matter the circuit court obtains statutorily mandated appellant complies tion if only Ill. v. procedures set forth the Act. Jones 19(f)(1) (1999). appeal to this is section 319-20 Relevant (820 305/19(f)(l) (West 2006)), procedure governs which Act ILCS to the circuit court. Sec initiating the Commission as follows: part tion states relevant *** “(1) against Illinois Except in of claims the State of cases county parties of the where defendant
Circuit Court found, if may parties or none of the defendant can be found county then the the accident this State Circuit Court where occurred, by power have shall summons to the Commission to questions presented by review all law and fact such record. proceeding days A review shall be commenced within of notice of the decision the Commission. The sum- upon mons shall be issued the clerk of such written day, on a designated returnable return not less than 10 or more thereof, days from than 60 the date of issuance written parties in request shall contain the last known address of other attorneys interest and their of record served who are sum- determine in its decision review the Commission shall each particular case the of the record to be amount cost in that part filed as a case and no for a summons may party summons be filed no summons issue unless the shall seeking review the decision of Commission shall exhibit by filing the clerk of the Circuit Court setting showing payment attorney forth that an affidavit Secretary payment has been of the sums so determined to the made *4 Commission, except as Secretary or Assistant of the otherwise 305/19(f)(l) (West by Act.” ILCS provided Section 20 of this 820 2006). every provision
This has stated that in section “traces court statutory 20-day period. Beasley back” the v. Industrial (1990). 460, Thus, jurisdiction perfect 198 Ill. 466 order to App. 3d appellant only the must not file a written days summons within receiving after the Commission’s deci sion, but he or she must also exhibit to the clerk of the circuit court within the same time frame either payment probable of cost the record on or an affidavit of an attorney set ting forth that such has been made to the Commission. 820 305/19(0(1) (West 2006); ILCS 198 Ill. Beasley, App. 3d at 465. No statutory requirements summons shall issue unless these are satisfied. 305/19(0(1) (West 2006); Beasley, ILCS 198 Ill. 3d at App. 463-64. case, present In the the Commission issued its decision on 11, 2008, probable March and the fixed cost of the record at $35. 24, Claimant received Commission’s decision on March 2008. The day 24, 2008, 13, twentieth Sunday, after March April Therefore, 14, 2008, claimant had Monday, April until file a written request for summons with circuit court to exhibit to the clerk of the court cost of record. See 5 (West 2006) (“The ILCS provided time within which act any 70/1.11 computed excluding law is to done shall first day last, including the day Saturday Sunday unless last or or is a holiday defined in the or fixed statute now or hereafter force in excluded”). State, and then it shall also be Claimant initiated his appeal April petition by timely filing for administrative review, to the circuit clerk to issue summons to Commis parties mailing sion and the and a certificate of of the sum day, mons to the Commission. That same the clerk of circuit court respondent issued the summons to the Commission and its at However, torneys. any the record does not contain documentation review, indicating that when he filed the statutory at within the 20-day period, time claimant also exhibited showing proof documentation fact, 28, 2008, it until approximately
record. was not October 6V2 expiration statutory period, months that claimant sought attorney setting to file affidavit from his forth of the probable cost of the record had been made to the Commission. Therefore, the clerk of the circuit issued the summons before establishing payment prob claimant exhibited documentation able the record. rule, strictly require general comply
As a the failure to 19(f)(1) deprives subject-matter ments of section 321; Arrington over Ill. 2d at v. appeal. (1983). Thus, circuit court correctly failure to establish that he determined that claimant’s showing proof documentation
161
jurisdiction.
subject-matter
the court of
cost of the record divested
found,
observes,
court has
supreme
our
However,
correctly
certain
circumstances,
compliance with
that substantial
under certain
19(f)(1)
adequate
is
to vest
requirements of section
321; Berry v.
Jones,
Ill. 2d at
See
188
subject-matter jurisdiction.
(1973). Thus,
for instance
2d
55 Ill.
277-78
Industrial
Jones,
that the circuit court obtained
court concluded
supreme
where
appeal from the Commission
subject-matter jurisdiction over an
court within
appellant
request
filed a
for summons
for the
proof
payment
statutory 20-day period, and exhibited
20-day period, but exhibited
the record within the
probable cost of
Jones,
Ill.
summons.
proof
payment
filing
that the
Similarly, Berry,
supreme
court concluded
2d at 324-27.
appel
subject-matter jurisdiction despite
acquired
circuit court
court a
failure
exhibit to the clerk of the circuit
physically
lant’s
Berry, 55
receipt showing payment
of the
cost of the record.
Berry
purpose
proof-
Ill. 2d at
court stated that the
277-78.
“
19(f)(1)
of-payment requirement
section
is to ‘coercethe
***
of an amount sufficient to cover the cost of the record which the
”
omitted.)
prepare.’
(Emphasis
Berry,
Commission must
the record statutory 20-day within the time frame.
Furthermore, unlike court in Berry, say we cannot prior evidence establishes issuing summons the clerk of the circuit court was satisfied that the cost of preparing the record had been received the Commission. Claimant cites no evidence that the clerk of the circuit court had type of contact with the Commis- verify sion to had been made in timely manner. Claim- point ant does out that the word “affidavit” was directly handwritten file-stamped on a copy of the request for According summons. to claim- ant, this notation was made someone in the clerk’s office and it *6 establishes that he showed the clerk that cost of the record had paid. disagree. been We The notation was not made on all copies of the request for summons contained in the record. Further- more, there is no made, record of who made the entry, when it was or what purpose addition, its intended was. In as the circuit court itself noted, no actual affidavit was filed when the for summons was Thus, made. attributing any specific meaning to the word “affidavit” require engage would us to in speculation.
Claimant asserts that upholding the decision of the circuit court would exalt form over that, substance. He also suggests because sec tion provides that no summons shall issue appel unless the lant proof exhibits
because the circuit fact issued a the clerk must However, have been satisfied that payment was made. in Arrington, 96 Ill. 2d rejected arguments. similar The Ar rington court stated:
“Although recognize Berry sought we to further substance over prevent form and depriving party right technicalities from heard, objectives to be against these must be balanced the statu- tory goal ensuring actually that prior has been received seeking to the issuance of the Inwrit. to relax further the standards Berry articulated in proof to cover a new situation where no exists in the record to show the actually clerk was made aware that the received, had been the claimant asks us to create an unac- ceptable risk that the writ of improvidently certiorari will be is- sued.
It is true that in our pay case the evidence now shows that the actually ment had been made and the of the Commission had been issued before writ of certiorari was issued However, case, procedure circuit court. under the followedin it possible would have been not to have been received issued, possible before the writ that it would never be received. statutory requirement designed The strictness of the was to ensure relieve the Commis designed happen. It was not that this would payment would or not uncertainty of whether sion of the Berry so statutory requirement relaxed the strict received. We exhibited physically necessary that the it was not however, cannot, relax the the writ issued. We the clerk before proceedings injecting into the extent of requirement further to the statutory requirement which the very uncertainty exhibiting physically Any designed to eliminate. substitute certainty that carry it the same must receipt to the clerk is demonstrated by the Commissionas been received payment has Furthermore, record receipt itself. exhibiting the physically certainty by which this reflect the nature circuit court should Ill. 2d at 510-11. Arrington, 96 accomplished.” has been cogent these words ignore reason to persuasive no Claimant offers above, physi- did not As we noted from our court. court, there is the circuit to the clerk of cally exhibit documentation substitute, and this adequate no evidence in the record Berry both and Jones. factually distinguishable case indicating that claimant short, find no in the record we receiv- days court within 20 to the clerk of the circuit showing proof decision documentation ing the Commission’s is no appeal, and there probable cost of the record on payment of the otherwise satisfied clerk of the circuit court was evidence that the paid prior to the issuance cost of the record had affirm the Accordingly, we summonses. prejudice claimant’s Winnebago County, which dismissed with court of *7 appeal from the Commission.
Affirmed. HOFFMAN, J.,
McCULLOUGH, EJ., concur. and DONOVAN,dissenting: JUSTICE that Jones v. majority’s view disagree with the respectfully
I (1999), Berry and v. Industrial Ill. 2d After (1973), “factually inapposite.” are Ill. 2d 274 in at bar ac in the case considering the facts and circumstances the Berry, I would reverse in and reasoning the Jones cordance with review and judicial for dismissing the circuit court’s merits. on the the case for a decision remand statutory special exercises a the circuit court It settled that is well that the and of the Commission in of decisions jurisdiction review the statute. prescribed in the manner jurisdiction only court obtains Jones, 319-20; at 188 Ill. 2d 55 Ill. 2d Berry, at 275-76. When constru ing applying and statutes related to reviewing courts “liberally should granting construe” a to in right appeal those order permit to to be provide cases considered on the merits and to that statutes applied practical Jones, a and commonsense manner. 328; Berry, 188 Ill. 2d at at 55 Ill. 2d 277-78. Jones,
In the claimant the a appeal, request initiated filed for manner, timely summons a and exhibited proof the 20-day filing record within the for period ap peal, but not he did exhibit that proof at time he filed request Supreme for summons. The Illinois Court found that the claimant’s proof failure exhibit at time he filed the oversight, for was a summons mere that was no strategic there omission, basis behind the claimant’s that the circuit clerk had compounded oversight accepting filing request for allowing summons and the summons to issue on date. The noted that allegation court there was no prejudice respondent to the or to the as a Commission result of the oversight. Jones, claimant’s Ill. 2d at 324. considering jurisdictional requirements under section
19(f)(1),
initially
the supreme court
noted that it is essential that ap
peals from the
timely
Commission be taken
a
manner
order to
claim,
prompt
injured
obtain a
resolution
an
employee’s
thereby
Jones,
satisfy key goal
compensation
of the workers’
law.
188 Ill. 2d
recognized
consistently
at 321. The court
it had
held
that the
timely filing
timely
of a
summons
exhibition of
proof
jurisdictional
cost of the record are
requirements
strictly
that must be
adhered to in order to vest the
circuit
appeal
court with
over
Commission.
Jones,
recognized
19(f)(l)’s requirement party seeking judicial that the review exhibit to precondition circuit clerk cost as proof-of-payment concluded issuance of a and it requirement potential administrative inconve serves eliminate nience 188 Ill. 2d at The court for the Commission. 325-26. exist, did requirement not proof-of-payment reasoned that if *8 compelled in it Commission could faced with cases which would with a quash to file a motion to summons because it had been served
165 designated a return the record directing prepare it to summons cost of the record date, for the had not received but considering In Jones, Ill. 2d at 325-26. date. prior to the return the cost paid the claimant had it, the court noted that the facts before the sum in of the return date on the record well advance preparing compelled been to contest and that the Commission had not mons summons. 19(f)(1) does not court next noted that section satisfy the consequences should follow from a failure to
indicate what
The court stated that
the absence
proof-of-payment requirement.
presume that
contrary,
to the
it would not
a clear indication
review,
judicial
intended the
legislature, having granted
right
a
’ ”
“
Jones,
grounds. See
right to be lost on
“narrow or technical”
quoting
188 Ill. 2d at
Lee v. Industrial
(1980),
Womack, 12 Ill. 2d
quoting
Smith v. Estate of
(1957) (when
there must be
construing
statutes related to
provisions conferring jurisdiction, but
compliance
substantial
with the
“
”
must not be
‘so narrow or technical’
as to defeat
construction
provisions
the intent
the act
all material
of the statute have
where
met).
liberally
keeping
principles
In
that statutes be
permit a
considered
the merits and that
construed to
case to be
results,
unjust
applied
practical
statutes be
manner to avoid
timely
claimant had
filed the
court determined
summons,
request for
that the claimant had satisfied the material
19(f)(1),
provisions
jurisdiction properly
and that
vested
of section
the circuit court.
forwarded to the Commission a check
copy
of the transmittal
letter he
tendered to
clerk
summons,
clerk,
issuing the
sent to the Commission. The
before
timely payment
that a
had been
telephoned
verify
the Commission to
required
Supreme
stated that the statute
received. The Illinois
Court
record be exhibited to
for the
issued,
it determined
clerk of the court before a writ of certiorari
circuit clerk was sufficient
by telephone
that a confirmation
to the
Berry,
In the case at filed fashion. court in a and thus initiated his above the hand-printed “Affidavit” is The record shows that the word THE document, “REQUEST TO THE CLERK OF title on the the clerk of the COURT,” some evidence that provides CIRCUIT at- verify that claimant’s issuing steps took before does not contain payment. The record torney had exhibited separate or a affidavit evidencing proof payment, but the *9 prepared Commission and submitted transcript of proceedings by designated case, return date. key purposes of section have been met. The petition for review filed, Commission, summons were having date, received for the record before the return was not caused to contest the nonpayment. summons for
Remaining mindful that the Act is a remedial statute intended to provide protection injured financial workers and that it should be liberally accomplish construed to primary purpose (Flynn v. (2004)), 211 Ill. 2d applying reasoning in in Berry, Jones and I find that claimant satisfied the provisions 19(f)(1), material jurisdiction properly section vested and that the circuit court erred in dismissing with prejudice claimant’s I review. would reverse the circuit court’s judgment dismissing prejudice peti claimant’s tion for administrative review and remand the case to the circuit court with instructions to decide the case on the merits. herein,
For the reasons stated I respectfully dissent. HOLDRIDGE, J., concurs this dissent. ILLINOIS,
THE PEOPLE THE Plaintiff-Appellee, OF STATE OF v. (Jenner SMITH, LLP, Appellant). KENNETH Defendant and Block Second District No. 2 — 09—0127
Opinion filed June