Franklin v. Wellco Co., 54860

Citation5 Ill.App.3d 731,283 N.E.2d 913
Decision Date04 May 1972
Docket NumberNo. 54860,54860
PartiesWillie FRANKLIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WELLCO COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Rehearing Denied June 6, 1972.

Aplon, Bennett, Alexander & Levine, Chicago (Harold I. Levine, Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.

Epstein, Wilsey and Kirsch, and Cohn, Cohn & Lambert, Chicago (Errol Zavett, Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.

DEMPSEY, Justice.

Willie Franklin, an employee of the Wellco Company, was injured three times during the course of his employment. He filed applications with the Industrial Commission of Illinois seeking compensation for his injuries. An arbitrator granted him awards totaling $6,579. Wellco did not file a petition to review the awards and they became final.

The compensation was not paid and the commission, as permitted by statute (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1967, ch. 48, para. 138.19(k)) increased the amount of the awards by 50 per cent ($3,289.50). Wellco did not appeal.

Payment of $9,868.50 was not forthcoming and Franklin turned to the Circuit Court pursuant to section 19(g) of the Workmen's Compensation Act (ch. 48, para. 138.19(g)) and obtained a judgment for that amount. The court fixed Franklin's attorney fees at $3,289.50 and the total judgment thus became twice the sum of the original awards.

After Wellco's bank account was garnisheed, it filed a petition under section 72 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1969, ch. 110, para. 72) to vacate the judgment. Wellco alleged that its petition was filed promptly after learning of the judgment, that it had not received timely notice of the proceedings before the Industrial Commission or the court, and that it had meritorious defenses to Franklin's claims for compensation.

Franklin moved to strike the petition on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to review the awards. The motion to strike was sustained and Wellco appealed to this court. It contends that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the petition on its merits, and that it also had jurisdiction because it had allowed costs and attorney fees.

As noted, Wellco did not appeal the arbitrator's decision or the penalty of the commission imposed. The jurisdiction which the Circuit Court exercises in workmen's compensation cases is a special statutory jurisdiction and a party desiring judicial review must comply with all the conditions prescribed. Moweaqua Coal Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Commission, 322 Ill. 403, 153 N.E. 678 (1926). Section 19(f) of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1969, ch. 48, para. 138.19(f)) affords the exclusive means of appealing an award of the commission. An employer cannot have the award reviewed by filing an answer in an action brought by the employee under section 19(g) to enforce the award (McCormick v. McDougal-Hartmann Co., 47 Ill.2d 340, 265 N.E.2d 610; Gerish v. Feldman, 381 Ill. 635, 46 N.E.2d 65) or by means of a petition under section 72 of the Civil Practice Act. A section 72 petition cannot cure the jursidictional defect caused by not proceeding with an appeal in accordance with section 19(f). Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Industrial Commission, Ill.App., 273 N.E.2d 725 (1971).

The purpose of section 19(g) is to permit speedy judgment in cases where there has been a refusal to pay the award and a need to reduce the award to judgment to compel its payment. The statute delineates the powers of the court in such a situation. It declares that when a final award of the commission is presented to the court, 'the court shall render a judgment in accordance therewith. . . .' The court lacks the power to pass upon the merits of the claims upon which the award was based or to hear arguments in opposition to those claims. In the present case, the court would have exceeded its authority if it had entertained that part of Wellco's petition which sought to contest the awards. Insofar as Wellco's petition was addressed to the propriety and amount of the awards, the court properly denied the petition to vacate the judgment.

A further purpose of section 19(g) is to compensate a claimant who is compelled to incur additional expense by reason of the refusal to pay an award by allowing him court costs and attorney fees. McMurray v. Peabody Coal Co., 281 Ill. 218, 118 N.E. 29 (1917). The statute empowers the court to tax 'the reasonable costs and attorney fees in the arbitration proceedings and in the court entering the judgment.' In entering the judgment in the instant case, the court taxed the costs of the proceedings against Wellco and allowed Franklin attorney fees. Inasmuch as the amount of these awards had been determined by the court itself, it had jurisdiction...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Reed v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 18, 2016
    ...award to judgment to compel its payment. The statute delineates the powers of the court in such a situation.” Franklin v. Wellco Co., 5 Ill.App.3d 731, 734, 283 N.E.2d 913 (1972). ¶ 17 Before this court, plaintiff contends that section 19(g) of the Act permitted the circuit court to enter j......
  • Konczak v. Johnson Outboards, A Div. of Outboard Marine Corp., 81-913
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 4, 1982
    ...... (Ahlers v. Sears, Roebuck Co. (1978), 73 Ill.2d 259, 268, 222 Ill.Dec. 731, 735, 383 N.E.2d 207, 211; Franklin v. Wellco Co. (1972), 5 Ill.App.3d 731, 734, 283 N.E.2d 913, 915, cert. ......
  • Ahlers v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 50295
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • November 22, 1978
    ......138.19(g).) Recognizing the purpose of the section to permit speedy entry of judgment (Franklin v. Weelco Co. (1972), 5 Ill.App.3d 731, 734, 283 N.E.2d 913, Cert. denied (1973), 411 U.S. 932, 93 ......
  • Ahlers v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., s. 76-1483
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 31, 1977
    ......v. Industrial Comm'n (1925), 315 Ill. 428, 430, 146 N.E. 442; see Franklin County Mining Co. v. Industrial Comm'n (1926), 323 Ill. 98, 102, 153 N.E. 635.) This negatives ... (Franklin v. Wellco Co. (1972), 5 Ill.App.3d 731, 734, 283 N.E.2d 913, cert. denied, 411 U.S. 932, 93 S.Ct. 1901, 36 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT