Brewerton Coal Co. v. Indus. Comm'n
| Decision Date | 23 December 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 17678.,17678. |
| Parties | BREWERTON COAL CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Logan County; Frank Lindley, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Paul Molner, opposed by the Brewerton Coal Company, employer. Compensation was awarded, and the employer filed its petition for review. Later it filed a written motion with the Commission to dismiss its petition for review, which was overruled, and award increased. On certiorari, the Circuit Court affirmed the award of the Industrial Commission as increased, and the employer brings error.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.Thomas C. Angerstein and George W. Angerstein, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
A. W. Kerr, of Chicago, and Joseph A. Londrigan, of Springfield, for defendant in error.
Defendant in error, Paul Molner, an employee of plaintiff in error, filed his claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1925, c. 48, §§ 138–172) with the Industrial Commission for compensationon account of injuries received by him arising out of and in the course of his employment. A hearing was had before an arbitrator, who awarded compensation in the sum of $17 per week for 31 3/7 weeks for the period of temporary total incapacity. Plaintiff in error, within the time prescribed by law, filed its petition for a review, and a hearing was set by the Industrial Commission for February 19, 1925. On January 14, 1925, plaintiff in error filed a written motion with the commission to dismiss its petition for review, and on February 19, 1925, upon a hearing before the commission, before any other proceedings were had, renewed its motion to dismiss its petition. It was stipulated upon the hearing of this motion that Molner did not know, within the statutory period within which a petition for review might be filed, whether or not plaintiff in error had filed a petition for review; that Molner had not filed a petition for review; and that he was in no way influenced by the action of plaintiff in error in filing a petition for review. The commission, after overruling plaintiff in error's motion to dismiss its petition for review, preceeded to a hearing, plaintiff in error not participating, and then entered an award for permanent total disability in the sum of $17 per week for 250 weeks, and thereafter a pension for life in the sum of $28.33 per month. Upon certiorari the circuit court affirmed the award of the Industrial Commission, and by leave of this court the record is now here for review upon writ of error.
[1] The material question involved in this case is whether or not plaintiff in error had a legal right to dismiss its petition for review upon the filing of the written motion to dismiss prior to the hearing on review, and upon the renewal of the motion at the hearing before any other proceedings were had, where it appeared that its action in filing its petition for review did not in any way prejudice or influence defendant in error, or cause him to not file a petition for review.
[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]While the Industrial Commission is not a judicial body and performs no judicial functions (Savoy Hotel Co. v. Industrial Board, 279 Ill. 329, 116 N. E. 712), we have repeatedly held that its findings, as in courts of law, must be based on evidence fairly tending to prove them (Bauer & Black v. Industrial Com., 322 Ill. 165, 152 N. E. 590), and when not so based it is the duty of a court of review to set them aside (St. Louis & O'Fallon Coal Co. v. Industrial Com., 321 Ill. 117, 151 N. E. 606); that the rules for the admissibility of evidence and the burden of proof are the same as prevail in common-law actions for personal injuries (Merritt v. Industrial Com., 322 Ill. 160, 152 N. E. 505;Consumers' Co. v. Industrial Com., 315 Ill. 592, 146 N. E. 539); that, while no technical pleading is necessary (Benton Coal Co. v. Industrial Com., 321 Ill. 208, 151 N. E. 520), following the analogy of courts of law, it is necessary for the claimant to set forth in his statement of claim sufficient facts to apprise the employer of the claim he is expected to meet (Becker v. Industrial Com., No. 17401, 153 N. E. 647); that, while the petition for review is sui generis, the rules of law as to jurisdiction are to be applied (Pocahontas Mining Co. v. Industrial Com., 301...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Centeno v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n
...been presented. Accordingly, we conclude that section 9020.60(c)(1) is not applicable to this case.¶ 33 In Brewerton Coal Co. v. Industrial Comm'n , 324 Ill. 89, 154 N.E. 412 (1926), the supreme court dealt with an issue similar to the one presented here. In that case, the arbitrator awarde......
-
Fulton v. Knight
... ... v. Industrial Comm., 332 Ill. 64, 163 N.E. 381; Sunlight Coal Co. v. Industrial Comm., 350 Ill. 125, 182 N.E. 758, and Skaggs v ... Brewerton Coal Co. v. Industrial Comm., 324 Ill. 89, 154 N.E. 412. The modern rule, ... ...
- People v. Trimm
-
Western Shade Cloth Co. v. Indus. Comm'n
...established rules of legal procedure in courts of law, so far as the same are applicable, are to be followed. Brewerton Coal Co. v. Industrial Com., 324 Ill. 89, 154 N. E. 412. Where a decree or order is reversed and the cause remanded by a court of review, the decree or order is abrogated ......