Moffat Coal Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 22 May 1947
• Docket Number: No. 29991.,29991.
• Citation: 397 Ill. 196,73 N.E.2d 423
• Parties: MOFFAT COAL CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

397 Ill. 196

73 N.E.2d 423

MOFFAT COAL CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 29991.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 22, 1947.

Error to Circuit Court, Randolph County; Edward F. Baries, judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Occupational Disease Act by Edward Herberger, claimant, opposed by the Moffat Coil Company, employer, wherein the claimant was awarded compensation. The Industrial Commission entered an order suspending the claimant's right to compensation until he should comply with employer's request to submit to an examination by employer's physicians, or until further orders of the commission, and the claimant brought certiorari to the circuit court. To review an order of the circuit court reversing and setting aside the commission's order suspending compensation, the employer brings error.

Writ of error dismissed.

W. C. Ropiequet, of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff in error.

Meyer & Meyer, of East St. Louis, for defendant in error.

THOMPSON, Justice.

Edward Herberger, on August 23, 1944, filed with the Industrial Commission an application for adjustment of his claim for compensation against the Moffat Coal Company. He alleged that on August 8, 1944, he became totally and permanently disabled from silicosis, an occupational disease contracted by him while employed by the company.

On October 5, 1944, at the request of the company, he appeared before Dr. Charles W. Miller and Dr. Joseph C. Peden, at their offices in St. Louis, Missouri, and submitted himself to a complete and thorough physical examination. December 28, 1944, Herberger served the company with medical reports of his condition from the United States Veterans Hospital at Marion, Illinois. Thereupon the company at once requested him to again submit, at its expense, to another examination by Drs. Miller and Peden. Herberger refused to do so, and on the petition of the employer, an order was entered by the Industrial Commission on April 3, 1945, under section 12 of the Workmen's Occupational Diseases Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1945, chap. 48, par. 172.12), suspending his right to compensation until such time as he might comply with the employer's request or until the further order of the commission. This order of the commission suspending the right to compensation was taken by certiorari to the circuit court of Randolph county, and by that court reversed and set aside. The company sought to have this circuit court order reviewed by this court on writ of error, but the petition for the writ not being filed until after the expiration of the time allowed by statute for filing the same (Ill.Rev.Stat.1945, chap. 48, par. 172.19(f) (2), we dismissed the petition without a consideration of its merits.

Thereafter the claim for compensation was set for hearing before the arbitrator, and the company again requested the employee, Herberger, to appear before Drs. Miller and Peden for a physical and X-ray examination. Herberger again refused and a petition asking that compensation be suspended was again filed by the company. A hearing was had before the commission upon said petition, the employee's answer thereto, and the employer's reply to the answer, and, on April 2, 1946, the commission again entered an order suspending the employee's right to compensation until such time as he should comply with the company's request or until the further orders of the commission. This order was likewise removed by certiorari to the circuit court of Randolph county and that court, on December 2, 1946, again entered an order reversing and setting aside the commission's order suspending compensation. We have allowed a writ of error to issue for the review of this last order of the circuit court.

The jurisdiction of the circuit court to review decisions of the Industrial Commission under the Workmen's Occupational Diseases Act is derived from section 19 of the act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1945, chap. 48, par. 172.19). The jurisdiction of this court to review such judgments and orders of the circuit court is derived from the same section. This section, insofar as it relates to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission, the circuit court and this court, is substantially the same as section 19 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1945, chap. 48, par. 156). The provisions of the Workmen's Occupational Diseases Act which are similar to those of the Workmen's Compensation Act must receive the same construction. People ex rel. Radium Dial Co. v. Ryan, 371 Ill. 597, 21 N.E.2d 749. We have held many times in cases under the Workmen's Compensation Act that the jurisdiction of this court is limited to a review of final judgments and orders. Thompson v. Industrial Comm., 377 Ill. 587, 37 N.E.2d 350;Brown Shoe Co. v. Industrial Comm., 371 Ill. 273, 20 N.E.2d 566;Dunavan v. Industrial Comm., 355 Ill. 444, 189 N.E. 283;Cooke v. Industrial Comm., 340 Ill. 309, 172 N.E. 761;Peabody Coal Co. v. Industrial Comm., 287 Ill. 407, 122 N.E. 843. A judgment or decree is final and reviewable by this court when it terminates the litigation on the merits of the case and determines the rights of the parties. Thompson v. Industrial Comm. 377 Ill. 587, 37 N.E.2d 350. A final judgment may be one which finally disposes of the rights of the parties upon the merits of the general controversy which is the subject matter of the litigation, or it may be one upon the merits of only one definite and separate branch thereof, if the effect of such decision is the final disposition of the litigation. Brauer Machine & Supply Co. v. Parkhill Truck Co. 383 Ill. 569, 50 N.E.2d 836, 148 A.L.R. 1208. The order which plaintiff in error attacks does not meet either of the foregoing requirements. It does not settle the entire controversy between the parties nor dispose of the litigation in which they are engaged. It does not decide that defendant in error is entitled to...