Arnold & Murdock Co. v. Indus. Bd.

• Decision Date: 21 February 1917
• Docket Number: No. 10792.,10792.
• Citation: 115 N.E. 137,277 Ill. 295
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: ARNOLD & MURDOCK CO. v. INDUSTRIAL BOARD et al.

277 Ill. 295

115 N.E. 137

ARNOLD & MURDOCK CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL BOARD et al.

No. 10792.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 21, 1917.

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; Oscar M. Torrison, Judge.

Petition by Walter Jacobs, employé, to the Industrial Board for review of an agreement or award. The Industrial Board awarded compensation, which was affirmed in the Circuit Court on writ of certiorari by the Arnold & Murdock Company, employer. The case was certified, and the employer brings error. Affirmed.Thomas C. Angerstein, of Chicago (George W. Angerstein, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Charles W. Lamborn and Edward McTiernan, both of Chicago, for defendants in error.

FARMER, J.

Defendant in error Walter Jacobs was injured March 26, 1914, while in the employ of the plaintiff in error, the Arnold & Murdock Company, as a teamster in the city of Chicago. On April 11 1914, he executed a general release to plaintiff in error for the expressed sum of $7.88. A petition was filed by Jacobs with the Industrial Board on March 15, 1915, setting out the date of his injury, and how he was injured while in the employ of plaintiff in error; that he was immediately disabled between 2 and 3 weeks, when the disability was apparently removed; that he was allowed compensation for a period of 9 days and paid therefor; and that there was a recurrence of his disability about June 15, 1914, which wholly incapacitated him from work. The Industrial Board found the disability of Jacobs recurred June 15, 1914, and that it was then of a total, permanent character, and so continued and existed at the time of the award. The Industrial Board entered an award of $6.90 per week from June 11, 1914, to October 27, 1915, for total disability; from October 27, 1915, to January 5, 1916, at the rate of $3.40 per week for partial disability, and from January 5, 1916, at the rate of $6.90 per week until the sum of total payments equaled $2,870.40, of which sum $7.88 was a credit, and further ordered that at the end of such period or the payment of such sum defendant in error be paid $229.63 each year during his life, the same to be paid in monthly installments of $19.136 each. The circuit court, upon writ of certiorari, affirmed the award of the Industrial Board, and certified in the opinion of such court the cause was one proper to be reviewed by this court, and the cause has come to this court by writ of error.

It was stipulated by the parties, upon the review of the decision of the Industrial Board by the circuit court, that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the findings of fact as to the physical condition of defendant in error Walter Jacobs. The Industrial Board, and the circuit court on review, held the Industrial Board had jurisdiction to entertain the petition under section 19h of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and that section 24 of the act, requiring a claim for compensation to be made within 6 months after payments under the act had ceased, was not applicable. The question here presented for review is to determine whether or not the Industrial Board had jurisdiction to entertain the petition of Jacobs filed March 15, 1915. This involves the construction of different sections of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1913, particularly sections 19h and 24. Plaintiff in error in its brief says the only question presented is whether or not section 24 applies in the instant case. If it does, it is claimed the Industrial Board had no jurisdiction. If it does not apply, and section 19h alone applies, the Industrial Board had jurisdiction of the petition.

Section 19h provides:

‘An agreement or award under this act, providing for compensation in installments, may at any time within eighteen months after such agreement or award be reviewed by the Industrial Board at the request of either the employer or the employé, on the ground that the disability of the employé has subsequently recurred, increased, diminished or ended; and on such review, compensation payments may be re-established, increased, diminished or ended.’

Section 24, after reciting within what time notice of an accident must be given an employer and of what such notice shall consist, provides:

‘No proceedings for compensation under this act shall be maintained unless claim for compensation has been made within six months after the accident, or in the event that payments have been made under the provisions of this act, unless written claim for compensation has been made, within six months after such payments have ceased.’

In construing statutes, each section or part will be looked to and given effect, if possible, and the intent of the lawmakers should be sought from a construction of the entire act. Section 9 of the act here involved provides under what circumstances a lump sum may be paid as an award under the act in lieu of payments in installments elsewhere provided for. Section 19 relates to procedure under the act, provides for a review of the decision of the committee of arbitration by the Industrial Board, a review of the decision of the Industrial Board by the circuit court, and a further review of the judgment of the circuit court by the Supreme Court by writ of error. Section 19h, here involved and above quoted, then provides an agreement or award under the act providing for compensation in installments may at any time within 18 months after such agreement or award be reviewed by the Industrial Board on the ground that the disability of the employé has recurred, increased, diminished, or ended since the making of the agreement or award.

Section 24 applies where compensation has been agreed upon or awarded for a period supposed to be sufficient to cover the time the disability of the employé will continue. If after the expiration...