Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. Industrial Commission

• Decision Date: 12 January 1979
• Docket Number: No. 50695,50695
• Citation: 384 N.E.2d 1329,74 Ill.2d 269,24 Ill.Dec. 171
• Parties: , 24 Ill.Dec. 171 FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, Appellant, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Sylvan E. Gray, Appellee.)
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 1329

384 N.E.2d 1329

74 Ill.2d 269, 24 Ill.Dec. 171

FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, Appellant, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Sylvan E. Gray, Appellee.)

No. 50695.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 12, 1979.

Henry D. Noetzel & Associates, Peoria (Henry D. Noetzel and William G. Gillies, Peoria, of counsel), for appellant.

William A. Mueller, Jr., of Markowitz, Lawrence, Jennings, Naylor & Mueller, Bloomington, for appellee.

GOLDENHERSH, Chief Justice:

Respondent, Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, appeals directly to this court (Supreme Court Rule 302(a) (58 Ill.2d R. 302(a))) from the order of the circuit court of McLean County entered upon allowance of the motion of petitioner, Sylvan E. Gray, to quash the writ of Certiorari issued pursuant to section 19(f)(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 48, par. 138.19(f)(1)).

On April 12, 1977, an arbitrator for the Industrial Commission found that petitioner was injured while in the employ of the respondent and awarded him compensation for a period of temporary total disability and for the permanent and complete loss of 15% Of the use of his right leg. A petition for review of the arbitrator's decision filed by respondent was stamped "Received" by the Commission on May 27, 1977. The Industrial Commission dismissed respondent's petition for review for failure to file the petition within 15 days of receipt of the arbitrator's decision. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 48, par. 138.19(b).) Respondent sued out a writ of Certiorari, which petitioner moved to quash on the ground that "the circuit court was without jurisdiction to review the award of the Industrial Commission because the party seeking review had failed to file a bond to secure payment of the award." The circuit court allowed the motion to quash and this appeal followed.

Section 19(f)(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act in pertinent part provides:

"No such writ of certiorari shall issue unless the one against whom the Commission shall have rendered an award for the payment of money shall upon the filing of his praecipe for such writ file with the clerk of the court a bond conditioned that if he shall not successfully prosecute the writ, he will pay the award and the costs of the proceedings in the courts. The amount of the bond shall be fixed by any member of the Commission and the surety or sureties of the bond shall be approved by the clerk of the court. The acceptance of the bond by the clerk of the court shall constitute evidence of his approval of the bond."

The Commission's order dismissing respondent's petition for review contained no provision fixing the amount of the bond. Respondent argues that "the burden of requesting the bond should be on the party for whose benefit the bond is set"; that "since no demand was made by employee he should be estopped from asserting the failure to post the bond as grounds for dismissal"; and that "by setting no bond the Commission in effect set bond at zero."

In Boalbey v. Industrial Com. (1977), 66 Ill.2d 217, 218, 5 Ill.Dec. 815, 816, 362 N.E.2d 286, 287, the court said "This court has stated that the circuit court has special statutory jurisdiction to review a decision of the Industrial Commission (under section 19(f) of the Act), but that the court has only those powers conferred by the statute. (Interlake Steel Corp. v. Industrial Com. (1975), 60 Ill.2d 255, 262, 326 N.E.2d 744; Peter H. Clark Lodge No. 483 v. Industrial Com. (1971), 48 Ill.2d 64, 69, 268 N.E.2d 382, and cases cited therein.) The corollary to the above proposition is that compliance with the statutorily prescribed conditions is necessary before the circuit court obtains subject matter jurisdiction. Peter H....