Tribune Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 17 December 1919
• Docket Number: No. 12854.,12854.
• Citation: 125 N.E. 351,290 Ill. 402
• Parties: TRIBUNE CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

290 Ill. 402

125 N.E. 351

TRIBUNE CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 12854.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 17, 1919.

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; Oscar M. Torrison, Judge.

Petition by Charles Kidd under the Workmen's Compensation Act to the Industrial Commission for review of a lump sum settlement award on the ground that his injury had increased, opposed by the Tribune Company, employer. The commission's decision was affirmed by the circuit court on certiorari, and the cause was certified as one proper for review by the Supreme Court, and the employer brings error.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.Ralph F. Potter and Kenneth B. Hawkins, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

John T. Byrnes, of Chicago, for defendant in error.

CARTER, J.

Charles Kidd, an employé of the company which publishes the Chicago Tribune, while at work in the course of his employment in the shipping department, slipped on some paste in the basement of the Tribune building, August 23, 1915, and sustained an injury to his left knee, for which he was paid compensation by the Tribune Company at the rate of $6 per week (one-half his weekly wages) for nine weeks; the last payment being made in October, 1915. In March, 1917, Kidd, not having recovered from the injury, entered into negotiations and executed a contract of settlement with the plaintiff in error company, under which he was paid $150 in cash. This settlement contract was confirmed by the Industrial Commission as an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1917, c. 48, §§ 126-152i) in said month. On July 23, 1918, Kidd filed a petition for review with the Industrial Commission on the ground that his injury had recurred and increased and had produced derangement of the hip and other injuries. After due notice to the plaintiff in error corporation, the commission on March 5, 1919, rendered its decision finding the applicant's injury had recurred and increased as the result of the accident and entered an award in his behalf. A writ of certiorari was sued out of the circuit court of Cook county, and on hearing that court confirmed the decision of the Industrial Commission, the court thereafter certifying that the cause was one proper to be reviewed by this court.

Counsel for plaintiff in error (the Tribune Company) argue that the statutory period for making a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, as provided in section 24, had expired before the settlement contract was executed, and therefore the Industrial Commission was without jurisdiction to entertain or to approve the claim. The time which elapsed between the last payment and the voluntary settlement was less than 18 months. Counsel for defendant in error, however, argues that jurisdictionwas conferred by consent and stipulation of the parties, and that therefore, under the provisions of paragraph (h) of section 19, read in connection with the other provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the cause was rightly reviewed by the Industrial Commission. Counsel for plaintiff in error insist that under the reasoning of this court in Haiselden v. Industrial Board, 275 Ill. 114, 113 N. E. 877,Bushnell v. Industrial Board, 276 Ill. 262, 114 N. E. 496, and Barrett Co. v. Industrial Com., 288 Ill. 39,123 N. E. 29, the claim for compensation not having been filed within the time prescribed by section 24 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Industrial Commission was without jurisdiction, 16 months after the last voluntary payment by plaintiff in error, to approve the voluntary settlement award, and that the approval of that award in March, 1917, did not give jurisdiction to the Industrial Commission under the provisions of paragraph (h) of section 19 of the act, which reads:

‘An agreement or award under this act, providing for compensation in installments, may at any time within eighteen months after such agreement or award be reviewed by the Industrial Board at the request of either the employer or the employé, on the ground that the disability of the employé has subsequently recurred, increased, diminished or ended.’ Hurd's Stat. 1917, p. 1462.

It is argued by counsel for plaintiff in error that the agreement for this settlement award in March, 1917, specifically states that the settlement was made after jurisdiction had been lost under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and that the settlement by plaintiff in error was purely voluntary on its part and not required by the act, and that therefore such settlement did not give the Industrial Commission jurisdiction.

This court has said in considering the above question that an employer cannot relieve himself from liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act by a contract with an employé. Chicago Railways Co. v. Industrial Board, 276 Ill. 112, 114 N. E. 534. In Wabash Railway Co. v. Industrial Com., 286 Ill. 194, 197, 121 N. E. 569, 570, we said:

‘Plaintiff in error was operating under the act, and any settlement or agreement made with an injured employé must be considered as having been made under the act,...