Zimmerman v. Industrial Commission
| Decision Date | 28 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 44119,44120,s. 44119 |
| Citation | 50 Ill.2d 346,278 N.E.2d 784 |
| Parties | Karl G. ZIMMERMAN, Jr., Appellant, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al., (Caterpillar Tractor Company, Appellee.) |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Mathies, Sloan, & Littler, Peoria, for appellant.
Westervelt, Johnson, Nicoll, & Keller, Peoria, of counsel, David A. Nicoll and Robert D. Jackson, Peoria, for appellee.
This is a combined appeal from the circuit court of Peoria County which entered orders each quashing a writ of Certiorari and sustaining the Industrial Commission's refusal to reinstate either of two workmen's compensation cases filed by Karl G. Zimmerman, Jr., who allegedly sustained two separate injuries in the course of his employment at Caterpillar Tractor Company. The first occurred on May 7, 1965, and the second occurred on November 29, 1966. An application for adjustment of claim was filed with the Industrial Commission for each injury. Over a period of two years, in addition to notices of hearing on said claims which were not marked 'final notice', one case was set for hearing on 'final notice' 19 times, and the other case was set for hearing on 'final notice' 6 times. Both cases were set for hearing on 'final notice' on December 11, 1968. On that date the petitioner and his counsel did not appear and both cases were set for hearing the next day, December 12. On that date again neither the petitioner nor his attorney was present and both cases were dismissed for want of prosecution.
The petitioner filed unverified motions to reinstate before the Industrial Commission. In them he alleged that he was continuing to receive treatment, that the petitioner's attorney had been in communication with the attorney for the respondent concerning settlement and that he had no reason to believe that he would be defaulted. Each motion further alleged that the petitioner has a meritorious claim. At the hearing on the motion the petitioner's attorney acknowledged that neither he nor the petitioner had been present at the hearing set for December 11. The Commission denied the motion to reinstate in both cases.
Petitioner sought review in each case by Certiorari in the circuit court of Peoria County. In support of the Certiorari proceedings petitioner filed in the circuit court affidavits which set forth the practice of the Industrial Commission of setting all Caterpillar Tractor Company cases for one day. He alleged that this extended to Caterpillar preferential treatment and inconvenienced petitioners inasmuch as more than 20 cases involving Caterpillar were set for the one day. The circuit court entered orders quashing the writs of Certiorari and sustaining the orders of the Industrial Commission.
Petitioner contends that the respondent's failure to file answers to his petitions to reinstate constitutes an admission of the allegations thereof and that the same should therefore have been allowed. In support of his position the petitioner cites several cases which involve section 72 of the Civil Practice Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1969, ch. 110, par. 72.) However, this is not a section 72 proceeding and we deem it unnecessary to discuss the applicability of such authority to this case. Assuming, Arguendo, that the respondent's failure to answer the unverified petition does constitute an admission of the allegations thereof, these admissions will only justify the allowance of the petition if the facts pleaded and admitted are sufficient to authorize the relief prayed.
In a petition for reinstatement before the Industrial Commission, the burden is on the petitioner to allege and prove facts justifying the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pathfinder Co. v. Industrial Commission
...to accomplish its purposes and objects. (Board of Education v. Industrial Com., 53 Ill.2d 167, 290 N.E.2d 247; Zimmerman v. Industrial Com., 50 Ill.2d 346, 278 N.E.2d 784; McDonald v. Industrial Com., 39 Ill.2d 396, 235 N.E.2d 824.) We have held broadly that the term 'accident' is not 'a te......
-
Interlake Steel Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 46697
...court tries the case on the record alone and has no authority to try the case de novo or to hear evidence. (Zimmerman v. Industrial Com., 50 Ill.2d 346, 278 N.E.2d 784.) In most cases the record reviewed by the circuit court will not contain the information necessary for the computation of ......
-
Gunthrop-Warren Printing Co. v. Industrial Commission
... ... (Pontiac Chair Co. v. Industrial Com. (1974), 59 Ill.2d 261, 266, 320 N.E.2d 7; Brown v. Industrial Com. (1972), 51 Ill.2d 291, 293, 281 N.E.2d 673; Zimmerman v. Industrial Com. (1972), 50 Ill.2d 346, 350, 278 N.E.2d 784.) The record here contains the trial court's order setting forth the court's reason for reversing the Commission. The record does not show whether the proceedings before the court were transcribed. If they were, and if remarks made ... ...
-
Zeigler v. Industrial Commission
... ... This court has held in workmen's compensation cases that the circuit court on review does not try the case de novo nor does it hear additional evidence. (Plano Foundry Co. v. Industrial Com. (1934), 356 Ill. 186, 191, 190 N.E. 255, Zimmerman v. Industrial Com. (1972), 50 Ill.2d 335, 278 N.E.2d 784.) In Zimmerman the employee, relying on State ex rel. Madison Airport Co. v. Wrabetz (1939), 231 Wis. 147, 285 N.W. 504, contended that additional evidence could be presented to the circuit court on review. We found that the question ... ...