St. Louis Pressed Steel Co. v. Schorr
| Decision Date | 21 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 14563.,14563. |
| Citation | 135 N.E. 766,303 Ill. 476 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS PRESSED STEEL CO. v. SCHORR. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, St. Clair County; George A. Crow, Judge.
Application for an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act before the Industrial Commission by Adolphus Schorr, opposed by the St. Louis Pressed Steel Company. From the granting of a judgment on the Commission's award for complainant by the circuit court, the employer brings error.
Affirmed.
William E. Wheeler, of East St. Louis (M. F. Oehmke, of East St. Louis, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
W. E. Hadley, of Collinsville, and F. H. Kruger, of Belleville, for defendant in error.
On petition of the St. Louis Pressed Steel Company a writ of error was awarded to review the record of the circuit court of St. Clair county, which rendered a judgment against the plaintiff in error in favor of Adolphus Schorr upon an award by an arbitrator of the Industrial Commission for $10 a week on account of temporary total disability for 12 weeks and for $10 a week for 180 weeks on account of permanent loss of 90 per cent. of the use of his right hand. The application for judgment alleged that no proceedings for review of the award had been taken, and that the plaintiff in error refused to pay compensation according to the award. The respondent filed an answer, alleging that it had filed its petition for review within 15 days of the receipt of notice of the award; that the arbitrator, to correct an error in the award, made a second award, and the plaintiff in error, within 15 days of receipt of notice of the second award, filed its petition for review of the second award; and that the petitions for review were pending and undetermined before the Industrial Commission. On the hearing the plaintiff in error offered in evidence a letter from the secretary of the commission, stating that the award was made on April 5, 1921, but that it was erroneous on its face; that the arbitrator made a second award, which was also erroneous; that the plaintiff in error filed petitions to have both awards reviewed, which are pending before the commission, but that the commission's entire file in the case had been missing for a long time; that diligent search had failed to bring it to light, and that therefore it was impossible to furnish certified copies of the petition for review. The plaintiff in error also offered in evidence a certificate of the secretary to the same facts which also contained copies of the awards.
Nothing more appears in the record as to the nature of the defendant's injury than the statement in the award that it caused a permanent partial loss of 90 per cent. of the use of his right hand. The compensation provided by the Workmen's Compensation Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1921, c. 48, §§ 126-1521) for the loss of a hand or the permanent and complete loss of its use is 50 per cent. of the average weekly wage during 150 weeks, 90 per cent. of which would be 135 weeks, instead of 180. The plaintiff in error insists that on the face of the award the amount could not exceed $10 a week for 135 weeks, that there is a manifest clerical error in computation, and that the award is excessive.
The law provides by section 19 (section 144) a method of review for the correction of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dratewska-Zator v. Rutherford
...731, 383 N.E.2d 207;McCormick v. McDougal–Hartmann Co., 47 Ill.2d 340, 343–44, 265 N.E.2d 610 (1970); St. Louis Pressed Steel Co. v. Schorr, 303 Ill. 476, 478, 135 N.E. 766 (1922); Aurora East School District v. Dover, 363 Ill.App.3d 1048, 1055, 301 Ill.Dec. 298, 846 N.E.2d 623 (2006). Drat......
-
Reed v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n
...if such method is not selected or is concluded, the circuit court may render judgment on the award. See St. Louis Pressed Steel Co. v. Schorr, 303 Ill. 476, 478, 135 N.E. 766 (1922). The Act reflects the legislative balancing of rights, remedies, and procedures that govern the disposition o......
-
Foster v. Mitsubishi Motors N. Am., Inc.
...decision or otherwise construe the statute even if the [award] appears too large on its face"); St. Louis Pressed Steel Co. v. Schorr , 303 Ill. 476, 478, 135 N.E. 766, 767 (1922) (if a certified copy of an award or decision is properly presented in a section 19(g) proceeding, the trial cou......
-
Konczak v. Johnson Outboards, A Div. of Outboard Marine Corp.
...Ahlers v. Sears, Roebuck Co. (1978), 73 Ill.2d 259, 268, 222 Ill.Dec. 731, 735, 383 N.E.2d 207, 211; St. Louis Pressed Steel Co. v. Schorr (1922), 303 Ill. 476, 479, 135 N.E. 766, 767. Thus, absent fraud or lack of jurisdiction, a party may not obtain review of the Commission's award in the......