J. W. Klapnan v. State of Illinois

GRIFFIN, E. A. GUNDERSON, D. HAFFRON, J. R. JACOBSON, C. E. LENGYEL, J. MORGAN, H. H. NIERENBERG,J. RICKETTS, W. J. RILEY, M. A. SCHILLER, M. G. SCHROEDER, A. SIMON, D. L. STEINBERG, S. WICK AND G. A. WILTRAKIS, Claimants, 'us. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Opanion filed September 14, 1949.

Rehearing denzed January 12, 1944.

Petitzon to vaaate order denyang rahearzng denied Narch 14, 1944.

COLLINS,. MCKENNA& MCCULLOUGH,for claimants. -GEORGEF. BARRETT, Attorney General; ROBERT V. OSTROM, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

SALARY-When c l am for wtll be denied. Where claimants, throughout their terms of service as employees of the State receive their regular monthly salary warrants, for such srvices, in amounts appropriated by Legislature therefor, and accepted same, they will be deemed to have been paid in full for such services for the times for which said warrants were issued, regardless of any right which they may have had to de-6 [*7] 1-10 mand or receive salary in any other amount, land an award for any additional amount of salary will be denied. (MtZZs vs. State, 9 Court of Claims Reports, page 69 and Broderac et al vs. Stale, 9 Court of Claims Reports, page 461, adhered to.)

S-om-Act in relataon l o State F t n a n c e i w k e n applacable to. The Statute on State Finance providing, among other .hings, that amounts paid from appropriations for personal services oP any officer or em. ployee of the State, either temponary or regular, shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll or other voucher and that no additional rmm shall be paid to such officer or employee from any lump s u m or other appropriation, is a direct limitation on the right of a claimant to further salary, where such claimant received and accepted regular salary warrants for such services, during term of employment, in amounts; appropriated therefor. (Il!f%ZZsvs. State, 9 Court of Claims Reports, page 69 and Bi-oderic vs. State, 9 Court. of Claims Reports, page 461, adhered to.)

CHIEF JUSTICE DAMRON

delivered the opinion of the court : The fifty-two above named claimants join in this claim seeking awards totalling $33,974.62, alleged to be due them for professional services rendered the respondent at various State institutions as senior physicians, junior physicians and assistant Ijhysicians during the years 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936 and the first half of 1937.

The' complaint was filed on February 19, 1938, and alleges that the Illinois State Civil Service Commission had, prior to such periods, k e d the salaries of physicians and senior physicians at a minimum of $170.00 per month with an automatic increase of $5.00 per month on and after one year of service, and the salaries of junior physicians and assistant physicians at a minimum of $150.00 per month.

That during their respective employments, claim$ ants were paid 10% less than their respective alleged minimum salaries.

That this reduction was made possible because the claimants and each of them executed to the respondent a [*141] personal service compensation adjustment in 1933. This document, marked claimants’ Exhibit 1is in words and figures as follows : “In consideration of the necessity of reducing governmental costs to correspond with the shrinkage in the general income, and in view of the decrease in the cost of living and the reduction in the pay of employees and workers in industry, I hereby voluntarily agree to accept the sum monthly, in full compensation for personal services to the State of Illinois, effective February 1, 1933.

Date ...................... 1933 ...............................

From the record it appears that claimants were paid approximately 10% less on salaries after the execution of the aforesaid compensation adjustment (Claimants ’ Exhibit 1). The complaint and bill of particulars attached thereto show that each claimant accepted the reduced salary paid him during the period involved. The claimants, through their counsel, take the position that they were Civil Service employees although the complaint does not establish that fact and say that their salaries, as fixed by the Civil Service Commission, are controlled by the said commission until action is taken to reduce or modify the employment status of an employee in the classified service and cite Sec. 12 of Chap. 24% Ill. Rev.

Stat. 1937 to support this view.

The respondent takes the position that when the claimants signed waivers and accepted compensation for a less amount than that which they are alleged to have been entitled, it estopped them from prosecuting this claim and precludes them from an award for the alleged difference, relying on Sub-par. 3 of Par. 145, Chap. 127, IZZ. Rev. Stat. 1937 (State Finance Act) which provides : “Amounts paid from appropriations for personal services of any officer or employee of the State, either temporary or regular, shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll or other voucher and no additional sum shall be paid to such officer or employee from any lump sum appropriation, appropriation for extra help or other purpose or any accumulated bal[*142]ances in specific approprilations, which payments would constitute in fact an additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made.”

This Statute was in full force and effect during the term of the employment of the claimaints and is controlling. If they were Civil Service employees as claimed by counsel, they still would be “employees of the State.”

They voluntarily entered into an agreement with the respondent reducing their salaries 10% m d it was binding upon each claimant who signed said document. The claimants herein in, each instance throughout the terms for which they seek an award received regular monthly salary warrants from the State of Illinois and accepted same from month to month as received, as shown by respondent’s Exhibit 1-6, inclusive, and as was said in Broderick et al, vs. State, (9 C. C. R. 461), “Regardless of any rights which they may have had to have demanded . and received salaries in any other amounts, claimants accepted said monthly warrants regularly through their term of service . . ..7 9 We hold that the decisions of this court in Broderick . vs. State, supra, and Mills vs. State, (9 C. C. R. 69) are . controlling in the in’stant claim, and that claimants are, and each of them is barred from securing an award.

The compIaint is dismissed. .

(No. 3 8 2 7 4 l a i m a n t awarded $5,228.75.)

RUTH N. GUSTAFSON, WIDOW AND CAROL :LOUISE GUSTAFSON, MINOR CHILD OF LESLIE L. GUSTAFSON, DECEASED, Claimants, vs. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Opinion filed Narch 15, 19/14.

PHILIP NYE, for claimant.

[*143] GEORGE F. BARRETT, Attorney General; C. ARTHUR NEBEL,Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT-when award may be made foy compensation for death of employee under. Where an employee of the State sustains accidental injuries, arising out of, and in the course of his employment, while within the protection of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, resulting in his death, an award for compensation therefor may be made to those legally entitled thereto, in accordance with the provisions of said Act, upon their compliance with the requirements thereof.

CHIEF JUSTICE DAMRON delivered the opinion of the court : The record in this case consists of the complaint, copy of letters of administration, departmental report and stipulation attached thereto, and waiver of brief, statement and argument on behalf of claimant and respondent.

Under rule 21 of the Court of Claims the report of the Division of Highways filed herein is prima facia evidence of the facts set forth therein. Said report recites that Leslie L. Gustafson resided in Monroe Center, Illinois, and was first employed by the Division of Highways on March I, 1941, as a supervising foreman in the Maintenance Department at a salary of $160.00 per month.

His rate of salary was increased to $170.00 per month on July 1, 1943, and remained at that level until Saturday, October 30, 1943. That he received $1,960.00 as salary during the year next preceding his death on November I, 1943. That deceased was 45 years of age and had a daughter, Carol Louise, age ten, and his wife, Ruth N. Gustafson, dependent upon him for support.

That the area supervised by Mr. Gustafson as an employee of the division embraced the major part of Ogle County and a small section of an adjoining county.

That he was required as supervising foreman to secure [*144] time cards from maintenance foremen at different points in Ogle County, which he delivered in person or sent to . the district highway office at Dixon. That October 30, being the last working day of the month, it was his duty to secure and deliver to the district highway office these cards as soon as practicable. That deceased secured time cards at the,Division of Highways garage at Polo, Ogle County, at approximately 11:20 A. M. on October 30, and additional time cards at the division garage at Forreston at 12:OO noon on said day. q’hat at approximately 6:35 P. M. the deceased was found in his car on the Leaf River Bridge on State Bond Issue Route 72, approximately one-half mile east of the Village of Leaf River. He had been badly injured. His car was facing east against the south bridge handrail and the entire right side of the car was totally demolished.

A passing motorist took Mr. Gustafson to the office of Dr. M. S. DuMont at Mt. Morris where first aid was administered. He was then removed kty ambulance to the Warmoltz Clinic at Oregon, where he remained until he died at 11:15 on Monday, November 1, 1943. Dr.

DuMont made the following report to the Division of Highways on November 2, 1943: “Extreme shock- internal injuries consisting of crushed che6tseveral ribs broken-medio-sternum crushed- hemoperitoneum- rupture of liver-four rents in right superior dome from costal margin to esophagus-hemorrhage.”

The Division of Highways paid the following bills incident to the injury: Dr. M. S. DuMont, Mt. Mqrris.. ................................ $45.00 Warmoltz Clinic, Oregon.. ..................................... 36.50 Farrell Funeral Home, Oregon.. ............................... 7.50 Total..................................................... $89.00 From a consideration of the evidence before it, the court finds that the deceased, Leslie L. Gustafson, and [*145]

I I

the respondent, were at the time of the accident and death, operating under the terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act; that the injury and death of claimant’s intestate was caused by an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment by the State of Illinois; that respondent had actual knowledge of the accident and that notice of claim and application for com- t pensation were made within the statutory limits of said Act; that the deceased’s annual earnings for the year preceding his death in the employment in.which he was then engaged were $1,960.00, or an average weekly wage of $37.69. That he left surviving him the widow, the claimant herein, mho was dependent upon him for support, and Carol Louise Gustafson, age ten, his daughter, who was dependent upon him for support.

The court further finds that the respondent has paid Dr. DuMont the sum of $45.00; Warmoltz Clinic the sum of $36.50; and the Farrell Funeral Home $7.50.

An award is hereby entered in the sum of $5,228.75 for the use of Ruth N. Gustafson, as widow, and Carol Louise Gustafson, as minor dependent child of Leslie L. Gustafson, deceased, as provided in Section.7 (a) and (k) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Documentar? proof of the marriage of claimant and deceased on January 11, 1918, is filed herein.

The court further finds that the claimant is now entitled to have and receive from the respondent the sum of $334.97, being the amount of compensation that has accrued to the 11th day of March, 1944. The remainder of said award is to be paid to said claimant in weekly payments of $17.63, commencing one week from the date last above mentioned until the award has been fully paid.

This award is subject to the approval of the Governor as provided in Section 3 of “An Act concerning [*146] the payment of compensation awards to State employees. ))