Arnold & Murdock Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 05 December 1924
• Docket Number: No. 16057.,16057.
• Citation: 145 N.E. 342,314 Ill. 251
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: ARNOLD & MURDOCK CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

314 Ill. 251

145 N.E. 342

ARNOLD & MURDOCK CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 16057.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 28, 1924.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 5, 1924.

Error to Superior Court, Cook County; Joseph B. David, Judge.

Petition by the Arnold & Murdock Company to the Industrial Commission to review award to Walter Jacobs, employee. Order dismissing petition affirmed by superior court, and petitioner brings error.

Affirmed.

Callagher, Kohlsaat, Rinaker & Wilkinson, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

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

FARMER, J.

This court granted the application of the Arnold & Murdock Company for a writ of error to review a judgment of the superior court of Cook county affirming an order and decision of the Industrial Commission dismissing a petition of plaintiff in error to review an award previously made to its employee, Walter Jacobs, on the ground that the disability for which the award was made had diminished or ended.

Jocobs was accidentally injured while in the employ of plaintiff in error, and in March, 1915, filed claim for compensation. A hearing was had and an award made in February, 1916. The applicant was awarded $6.90 per week from June 11, 1914, to October 27, 1915, for total disability; from October 24, 1915, to January 5, 1916, $3.40 per week for partial disability; and from January 5, 1916, he was awarded compensation of $6.90 per week until the total payments equaled $2,870.40, and a pension for life of $19.13 per month, payment of which was to begin when the above total had been paid. The award was confirmed by the circuit court of Cook county, and the decision of that court was affirmed by this court in February, 1917. Arnold & Murdock Co. v. Industrial Board, 277 Ill. 295, 115 N. E. 137. March 15, 1917, plaintiff in error filed a petition under paragraph (h) of section 19 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1913, p. 350), alleging the disability had decreased or ended and praying that the award be decreased. A hearing was had on that petition, and the Industrial Commission dismissed it on the ground that the disability had not decreased or ended. The petition in the present case, alleging the disability had decreased or ended, was filed May 3, 1922, under what is now paragraph (f) of section 8 as amended in 1921 (Laws 1921, p. 452), and the question presented is whether the amendment of 1921 applies to this case.

At the time the award was made in this case, paragraph (f) of section 8 provided for an award of compensation in cases of complete disability which rendered the employee wholly and permanently incapable of work and a pension for life of not less than $10 per month. In 1921 paragraph (f) was amended by adding:

‘Provided, any employee who receives an award under this paragraph and afterwards returns to work, or is able to do so, and who earns or is able to earn as much as before the injury, payments under such award shall cease; if such employee returns to work, or is able to do so and earns or is able to earn part but not as much as before the injury, such award shall be modified so as to conform to an award under paragraph (h) of this section: Provided, further, that disability as enumerated in subdivision 18, paragraph (e), of this section shall be considered complete disability.’

That amendment applies to all cases where the award is made under paragraph (f) of said section, and no limit of time is fixed within which a petition may be filed to modify the award if the employee returns to work or is able to do so, and earns as much or part but not as much as before the injury. It is not contended that the petition to modify an award made under paragraph (f) of section 8 is governed by paragraph (h) of section 19, but the contention of defendant in error is that the award here under consideration was made before the 1921 amendment was enacted; that the award was a vested right in the employee, and the amendment was not intended to and could not affect an award made before the amendment went into effect. At the time the petition of plaintiff in error was filed, May 3, 1922, the time for payment of the pension in monthly installments had not arrived, as there remained about $30 of the specific award to be paid before the monthly installments of pension were to begin, approximately May 14, 1922.

Defendant in error insists that there is no language in the amendment to indicate it was intended to have a retroactive effect, but that, in any event, the Legislature had no power to enact an amendment affecting an award which was final under the law before the amendment was adopted. It is argued that the award was a vested right in the employee of present and future enjoyment, and the Legislature could not extinguish it by a subsequent enactment. At the hearing under the petition defendant in error entered a special appearance and challenged the jurisdiction of the commission to determine any issue arising under the petition.

The employee, Walter Jacobs, was called as a witness by plaintiff in error, testified, and was...