Paul H. Boyers v. State of Illinois — 12 Ill. Ct. Cl. 377

PAUL H. BOYERS, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought an additional 15% total permanent disability award under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but the court found insufficient evidence to support a further award and denied the petition.

Claim type: Other

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

WORKMEN’S C O M P E N S A T I O N ACT-burden O f Pl-OOf in Claims under O n Claim-

Rehearing denied April 15, 1943. Claimant, pro se. GEORGE F. BARRETT, Attorney General; ROBERT V. OSTROM, Assistant Attorney General, f o r respondent. WORKMEN’SCOMPENSATION ACT-burden O f Pl-OOf in Claims under O n Claimant- failure t o sustain bars award. The general rule of law that the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove his case by a preponderance or greater weight of the evidence is applicable t o claims under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and where claimant has not so proven his claim no award can be made. , Per Curiam: This matter again comes on for hearing on petition of claimant for an additional award amounting t o fifteen per cent (15%) total disability. On June 30, 1937, this court awarded claimant $2,225.00 f o r fifty per cent (50%) total disability. On May 14th, 1941, this cause again came on f o r hearing on petition f o r further award. Upon due consideration the court granted claimant an additional fifteen per cent ’(15%) total permanent disability. The petition now under consideration was filed April 27, 1942, seeking an additional fifteen per cent (15%) total permanent disability. The evidence shows’that this claimant a t the time of filing this petition was employed at the Green River Ordnance Plant, at Sterling, Illinois, as equipment inspector, but the record is silent regarding the amount. he is earning. The court having duly considered the additional evidence in support of said petition finds that no sufficient showing appears therein upon which to authorize a further award. The petition for further award is therefore hereby denied.

Claimant, pro se.

GEORGE F. BARRETT, Attorney General; ROBERT V. OSTROM, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

WORKMEN’S C O M P E N S A T I O N ACT-burden Of Pl-OOf in Claims under On Claimant- failure to sustain bars award. The general rule of law that the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove his case by a preponderance or greater weight of the evidence is applicable to claims under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and where claimant has not so proven his claim no award can be made. ,

Per Curiam:

This matter again comes on for hearing on petition of claimant for an additional award amounting to fifteen per cent (15%) total disability.

On June 30, 1937, this court awarded claimant $2,225.00 for fifty per cent (50%) total disability. On May 14th, 1941, this cause again came on for hearing on petition for further award. Upon due consideration the court granted claimant an additional fifteen per cent ’(15%) total permanent disability. The petition now under consideration was filed April 27, 1942, seeking an additional fifteen per cent (15%) total permanent disability.

The evidence shows’that this claimant at the time of filing this petition was employed at the Green River Ord[*378]nance Plant, at Sterling, Illinois, as equipment inspector, but the record is silent regarding the amount. he is earning.

The court having duly considered the additional evidence in support of said petition finds that no sufficient showing appears therein upon which to authorize a further award. The petition for further award is therefore hereby denied.