*1 interlocutory Thus, though aspects). IEPA’s actions had Watts was then disapproval permit allowed to contest the as a denial appeal pur- 40(a)(1) suant to section of the Act. 21(e) petition

On March filed Watts its section with the Board; this was within 35 days February IEPA’s letter. Ac- cordingly, jurisdiction. the Board had hearing we reverse and remand Board for on the

sufficiency of policy. the insurance

III. CONCLUSION we Accordingly, reverse the ruling Board’s and remand to the Board with directions.

Reversed and remanded.

KNECHT, J., concurs. COOK, specially concurring: JUSTICE IEPA position does not take no final order has been case, entered in this if one has been entered it was not days, any entered within the last appeal and therefore would be untimely. A business has a appeal under section 21.1 Act, and it improper attempt is for IEPA to right by to defeat that is- suing argues unclear orders which appeal it are final if no but taken are argues in the an appeal nonfinal event is taken. STORES, INC., Appellant,

WAL-MART v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION (Heather Parry, Appellee).

et al. Fourth District No. 4—01—0037WC Argued Opinion October filed December 2001. *2 McCULLOUGH, EJ., specially concurring. J., RARICK, specially concurring part dissenting part, joined by

HOLDRIDGE, J. Rusin, Cosimini, Fatton, Friedman, Ltd., R. Mark & Maciorowski Urbana, appellant. for Kathy Olivero, Associates, A. of Kanoski & Springfield, appellee. JUSTICE O’MALLEY opinion delivered the of the court: Respondent, Stores, (Wal-Mart), Inc. appeals from the order confirming of the trial court the decision of the Industrial Com- (Commission) claimant, mission wherein Heather Parry, was awarded temporary disability benefits, permanency total benefits, and payment of medical cross-appeals bills. from trial deny- court’s order ing her to dismiss. motion 11, 1995, Parry

On November employed by Wal-Mart and was p.m. p.m. scheduled work a 4:30 to 11 shift. left the store p.m. night; instead, 8:30 for her meal She did break. not return that she called the store from her home and manager told the assistant *3 slipped she had on ice in parking way the lot on the to her car injured and seeking care, back. After medical was released 26, to work on December 1995. an application adjustment 15, filed for of claim February on Following evidentiary

1996. an hearing, the arbitrator found that Par- ry’s injury arose out of employment the course of her and that causally her current ill-being injury. condition of related to her Parry temporary disability the arbitrator awarded total benefits, benefits, permanency and payment of medical bills. The Commission, dissenting opinion, with one adopted affirmed and arbitrator’s decision. request

Wal-Mart filed for summons and review in the circuit May 20, County Along court of Macon on 1999. request, with the Wal- copy appeal Mart filed a an May of bond that had been executed on 19. original 25, days The bond was not May period filed until five after the filing dismiss, expired. Parry for had filed a arguing motion to circuit did subject-matter jurisdiction not obtain the matter over because Wal-Mart had not an appropriate request filed bond with its for trial court denied the motion to but af- summons. The dismiss appeal cross-appeal firmed the Commission’s order. This followed.

441 contends that Parry’s cross-appeal. Parry address We will first jurisdiction review subject-matter have court did not the circuit statutory failed to fulfill decision because Commission’s circuit jurisdiction. While vesting for the court with requirements jurisdiction enjoy presumption general courts are courts of in work presumption is unavailable subject-matter jurisdiction, that special statu where the court exercises compensation proceedings, ers’ 166, Comm’n, App. 314 Ill. tory jurisdiction. Kavonius (2000). 1287, 1290 731 N.E.2d Act) (the 19(f)(2) Act Compensation of the Workers’ Section file an bond appeal court review to requires party seeking circuit 305/19(f)(2) request for summons. 820 ILCS along with the written 2000). (West days for must be filed within request The summons 305/19(f)(l) decision. 820 ILCS Commission’s receipt notice (West 2000). party against whom No shall issue unless the summons upon filing of his writ an award “shall the Commission rendered 820 ILCS file the bond with clerk. request ten for such summons” 305/19(f)(2) (West 2000). filing requisite to confer The of the bond v. Tire & Rubber Co. ring jurisdiction the circuit court. Firestone on (1979). Comm’n, 74 Ill. 2d Industrial are insuf improperly held that executed bonds Courts have court, jurisdiction in the circuit even when bonds ficient to vest v. Construction Co. timely filed fashion. See Deichmueller (1992); 151 Ill. 2d Industrial Ill. App. v. Berryman Equipment Industrial v. (1995); Corp. Car Industrial Illinois Armored In 993, 999, 563 N.E.2d 205 Ill. cases, timely along filed with writ appeal an bond was each of these however, signed by the summons; each bond was request ten employer. These bonds were found employer’s attorney instead of 19(f)(2) that section requirement not be in with the compliance shall have rendered award party against whom Commission attesting attorneys’ authority, file affidavits the bond. Even 20-day filing period, by the outside the subsequently employers filed Co., did correct deficiencies. See Deichmueller Construction 955; Berryman Equipment, 657 N.E.2d at 151 Ill. 2d at 1041; Corp., Armored Car 78-79, Illinois 998-99, 3d at 563 N.E.2d at *4 in those cases be The bonds distinguishable. find these cases to We however, manner; attorneys, the timely a because were filed in that bonds, was no evidence signed the there employers, official of the expiration It after the actually bound. was employers were employ- authority attorneys bind filing period that the Here, employer ers was demonstrated. evidence that the was covered timely a in copy clearly bond was filed a fashion. The of the bond bond, showed the amount of principals surety. and the The obligations the principals surety clearly and the were stated. There question is no but that Wal-Mart had obtained a sufficient bond. 496, 499, We find Lee v. Industrial 82 Ill. 2d (1980), Lee, applicable to more to the case before us. In timely signed by partner filed bond was employer one of the as partner principal surety. another as The claimant moved to ground partners dismiss on the improperly acting as principal surety. both the granted The trial court employer subsequently claimant’s motion. The tendered a bond with partners as principals party surety. both and a third as The trial court accept refused to untimely. the second bond because it was Our court, supreme finding irregular, while that the first bond was remanded the cause to the trial court with instructions to determine bond; sufficiency of the second if the bond were found to be suf ficient, the Lee, trial court was to address the merits cause. Ill. 2d supreme at 413 N.E.2d at 427. The quoted ap with proval Republic Corp. 311, 313, Steel 30 Ill. 2d “ (1964), for the proposition tendency ‘[t]he to simplify procedure, to honor prevent substance over form and to ” depriving party Lee, technicalities from of the to be heard.’ Ill. 2d quoting Steel, at 412 N.E.2d at Republic 30 Ill. 2d quoted N.E.2d 655. The Lee court also Smith v. Estate of Womack, (1957), stating: “ construing applying relating jurisdiction ‘In statutes compliance provisions

there must be substantial with the court, conferring jurisdiction statute on the but the construction is not to sobe narrow or technical as to defeat the of the intention thereof, act or the provisions beneficial results where all material ” Lee, complied of the statute have been with.’ 82 Ill. 2d at 413 N.E.2d at 427. within,

Pursuant to Lee and the cases cited we conclude that filing even if copy “irregular,” substantially bond was 19(f)(2) complied foregoing circumstances, with section under the it copy timely request wit: filed the of the bond with the for summons and promptly irregularity by filing original shortly cured the bond requiring thereafter. The benefit of the bond was achieved because was, fact, procured copy sufficient bond and the of the bond showed coverage had been obtained. To hold exalt otherwise would form over substance and defeat the intention of the Act even when that did intention had been fulfilled. the circuit court not err denying Parry’s motion dismiss. *5 as a Commission erred that the Wal-Mart contends appeal,

In its injury. compensable Parry sustained finding that matter of law in with lot was covered parking that the Wal-Mart The evidence showed There 1995. or ice on November ice the result of an storm as Wal-Mart, by employees used both lot parking one at was to on the required, park but not requested, patrons. Employees were access would have better south the'lot so that customers side of from However, was not restricted side of the lot front door. the south patron use. that, p.m. at about 8:30 on

Parry as walked to her car testified she her. She Saturday, feet came out from underneath November her ground. She then her back hit the twisted around to catch herself but actually ground but that she felt did not hit the testified that her back ap- home falling. drove to her something pull as was She she Wal-Mart, to speaking and called Sharon. proximately away one block sought day. She night or the next She did not return to work Monday. medical on attention not driven cross-examination, admitted that she had Parry

On roommate, Instead, 11. her Amber herself to work on November to when waiting pick up Parry her Samples, had borrowed car was According Parry, Samples, in to who was not Parry parking fell lot. the car in the employee, waiting was with section employees encouraged park. lot in to which the manager Lynn support Sharon Nielsen testified that she was Parry call from on the Wal-Mart in November 1995 and received the gone that she had home for night Parry of November 11. told her building. of her parking apartment lunch and had fallen lot in, time the came but estimated Nielsen could not remember what call report made no written p.m. that it was between 6:30 and 7:30 She day. the incident that manager at that she was an assistant

Wilda Mae Land testified Wal-Mart and received a call from on November had coming her be in to work because she told that she would not fallen, Parry had said Land where she slipped and fallen. When asked not remember time the that she had fallen at home. Land could what in, long how the call lasted. She present, call came or who else was made no written record of the conversation. elements of the claimant to establish the

The burden lies with Brands, v. Inc. Industrial compensation. Nabisco (1994). accidental 1103, 1106, For App. injuries injuries compensable, a must to be claimant show Nabisco, 266 Ill. employment. App. arose out of and the course of an employment, out of one’s 581. To arise (1) injury origin must have an in some risk connected with or (2) employment; incidental to the or by be caused some risk which the employee exposed greater to a degree general public by than the employment. virtue of his Dodson v. Industrial 308 Ill. Typically, injury an arises employment if, out of occurrence, at the employee time performing act that he or she was instructed the employer to perform, an act that statutory duty he or she had common-law or perform, or might an act employee reasonably expected perform assigned Nabisco, incident to duties. 266 Ill. 3d at time, N.E.2d at 581. “In the of’ place, course refers to the cir cumstances under which the accident occurred. Illinois Consolidated Telephone Co. v. Industrial *6 (2000). 49, N.E.2d 51 injury An that a results from hazard to which an employee equally would have been exposed apart from employ personal ment or a risk purely to the employee compensable. is not Nabisco, 1106, 266 3d App. 641 N.E.2d at 581. argues

Wal-Mart that the Commission’s decision was incorrect as a matter why of law. to Wal-Mart fails tell us this case should be decided as matter of law of instead as matter of fact. The facts in undisputed, this case were not presented as Wal-Mart that testimony Parry told two employees Wal-Mart that she fell in parking lot of apartment building, her not the Wal-Mart of lot. The issue whether relationship there is a causal between a employment claimant’s and injury question his is a of by to determined the Commission. fact Mining Comm’n, Freeman United Coal Co. v. Industrial 317 Ill. (2000). 497, 504, 1009, 739 N.E.2d willWe overturn such against a decision if it weight is the manifest of evidence. Sosniak (1967). Comm’n, v. Industrial 37 Ill. 2d 224 N.E.2d Our of review the evidence leads us to conclude that the Com against

mission’s decision is weight manifest The evidence. purpose protect the Act to employees against of is and hazards risks peculiar that are to the of they do, nature the work Bell Illinois Co. Telephone 478, 483, 131 Ill. 2d (1989). 603, 605 The mere fact employee that duties take the that, place injury and employment, employee but for the would give not have been there is to not sufficient rise to the to compensation. Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial 129 Ill. 52, 63, The evidence clear that the parking entire by patrons lot was available for use both and employees Parry park night. alike. did not her own car in the lot that Although Samples waiting was for in the section of the lot in employees park, Samples which were asked to was not employee, Parry, her including asked anyone, no evidence and there was and the hazard to which she Parry’s fall from a there. resulted park thus, did not arise out exposed; injury her equally general public were employment. Sons, Comm’n, 41 Inc. v. Industrial Hiram Walker & cites (1968), American and 180-81 Ill. 2d 198 Ill. Cordsets v. Industrial Electric park (1990), that the Act “covers proposition for the on slippery ice other substances part by or ing lot accidents caused There was However, distinguishable. of these cases are the lot.” both question was lot in parking Walker that the no evidence in Hiram court in Amer and the regular by general public, for use available to support of evidence specifically Cordsets found lack ican Electric by gen argument regularly lot used employer’s was Cordsets, public. American Electric eral See in those Thus, general public the employees N.E.2d at 825. and the Here, employees both exposed cases to the same hazards. entire lot. patrons equal and had access analogous Caterpillar us is Tractor More the situation before Co., In the claimant Caterpillar, 129 Ill. 2d at 541 N.E.2d at 669. normally used em place employment through left his the door Immediately in employee parking lot. ployees walked toward running with a curb place employment front of was a sidewalk ap along edge. along its claimant walked the sidewalk The proximately driveway feet he the curb onto stepped before off company premises driveway part twisted his ankle. The was by employees general public pick up employ used and the supreme the claimant did not establish ees. Our court found that *7 “Curbs, public. exposed general he was a risk not common to the them, all of traversing and all the risks inherent in confront members 62, Co., Ill. 2d at 541 N.E.2d at public.” Caterpillar Tractor object comparing exposures 669. The court noted that public identify employee general risk of an and the “is isolate and Caterpillar Tractor employment.” the distinctive characteristics Co., Here, no 62, 2d at 669. there are such 541 N.E.2d every gen distinctive Both and member of the characteristics. public park Parry’s employment eral in the lot. anywhere were free to gen vis-a-vis the place any special position at Wal-Mart did not her in public eral in that lot. did arise out of her Parry’s injuries conclude that did not

We against decision was employment. the Commission’s weight manifest of the evidence. reasons, of the circuit court of Macon judgment

For these County as Parry’s is affirmed to the denial of motion to dismiss reversed toas the decision of the Commission.

HOFFMAN, J., concurs. McCULLOUGH, specially PRESIDING JUSTICE concurring: I in finding concur the decision the circuit did properly have jurisdiction of the I proceeding. review also concur in the determina- tion the facts of this case not support do the award of benefits.

I separately jurisdiction write as to the issue. The bond as filed 19(f)(2). fully complied Although with section copy, it timely, was executed, properly and Wal-Mart was responsible pursuant to the terms of the bond. A against recovery Wal-Mart defense on the bond filed, bond, as that it original was not the would be without merit. clear, majority

As involving by makes signed those cases bonds attorneys clearly distinguishable. Here, clearly are the record shows bond, there was sufficient the copy coverage filed shows had been obtained, dispute and there is no that the bond was in form. proper RARICK, specially

JUSTICE concurring part dissenting in in part:

I in portion majority’s concur of the finding proper decision jurisdiction dissent, however, of the proceeding. review I respect with of compensability. issue I do not believe the Commission’s deci against weight sion was First, manifest of the evidence. the deter mination credibility a matter Wagner Commission. Cast ings Comm’n, Co. v. Industrial (1993). 241 Ill. 609 N.E.2d 397, 405 The Commission found claimant’s reports version and the incident to credible. areWe not to reverse that determination merely because other inferences are also reasonable. Orisini v. (1987); Industrial Ill. Wagner Castings, 3d at Ill. Second, injuries accidental in parking sustained lot either owned or employer controlled an within a reasonable time before or after work are generally deemed to arise out of in of employ the course ment, especially injury when the claimant’s as a was sustained result employer’s premises. condition Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Industrial 91 Ill. 610-11 (1982); Hammel 253 Claimant’s car parked area where employees requested away This park. area was farther from store, thereby subjecting injury her to increased risk of traversing icy agree lot. I suf- with the Commission that claimant *8 employment her between connection ficiently causal established of the circuit the decision injuries. I therefore affirm would Commission. confirming decision dissent. joins in this HOLDRIDGE JUSTICE SCHOMIG, ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, M. v. JAMES E. ANTHONY Defendant-Appellee. No. 4—01—0231

Fourth District Opinion December filed Robinson, Pontiac, Anthony appellant pro se. (Joel Bertocchi, Ryan, Attorney General, Chicago D. Solicitor James E. Attorneys Mills,

General, R. Assistant William L. Browers and Kendall counsel), General, appellee.