ADAMKOLEITA, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought $4,000 for an injury sustained in 1933 while working at Municipal Lodging House No. 5, but filed his complaint in 1934, more than one year after the injury. The court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was barred by the statute of limitations under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Statutes cited: Section 24 of the Workmen's Compensation Act
Cases cited: Crabtree vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 207
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION am- making, c l a m for, and filing application foi4 compensation wzthin tame fixed in Section 24 of, coindation precedent t o j u n s d i c f t o n of cozrrt. Where no compensation has been paid under Act, and no application for same is filed within time fixed therein, court is without jurisdiction to proceed with hearing on claim filed thereafter.
- CHIEF JUSTICE DAMRON
[*218] On June 26th, 1934 the claimant, Adam Koleita filed his complaint in-this court alleging that on the 20th day of May 1933, while he was engaged as a handy man and machinist at Municipal Lodging House No. 5 in Chicago, Illinois, was injured in the course of his employment; that said Municipal Lodging House No. 5 was under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Emergency Relief Commission at the time he sustained said injury. He seeks an award of Pour Thousand Dollars
($4,000.00).
On February 19th, 1935, by agreement of the parties hereto testimony was taken in support of said complaint and on November 5, 1935, further testimony was taken on behalf of claimant. On July 30th, 1942, the respondent, through the Attorney General filed its motion to dismiss.
It is not understandable to the members of this court why this motion to dismiss mas -ndt filed years ago, it appearing on the face of the complaint that claim was filed more than one year after said injury was sustained and it further appears from the evidence that no compensation payments were made to claimant to revive the Statute of Limitations prior to the filing of this complaint.
It has been repeatedly held by this court that the making of claim for compensation and filing application therefor within the time fixed by Section (24) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is a condition precedent without which the Court of Claims is without jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing.
Crabtree vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 207.
The motion of the Attorney General therefore is sustained for lack of jurisdiction to hear said complaint.
Case dismissed.