VERNE E. SCOTT, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought compensation for a back injury sustained while moving lockers and later lifting paper towels. The court dismissed the claim because it was not filed within one year of the accident as required by Section 24 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Statutes cited: Section 24 of the Illinois Workmen's Compensation Act; Section 10 of the Court of Claims Act
Cases cited: City of Rochelle vs. Industrial Commission, 332 Ill. 386; Inland Rubber Co. vs. Industrial Commission, 309 Ill. 43; Simpson vs. State, 10 C. C. R. 394; Baker vs. State, 10 C. C. R. 111; Boismenue vs. State, 12 C. C. R. 36
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- WoRKiwm’s COMPENSATION Am-makzng clazm f o r compensation and filang applzcatton therefor wzthan t i m e fixed by Xectaon 24 of A c t as a condataon precedent t o jurasdactzon of court. Where the record discloses I that no application for compensation was filed by employee within one year after date of injury, no compensation having been paid therefor, t h e court is without jurisdiction to proceed with hearing on claim filed thereafter.
- SAnlrE-lznzztatzorzs-Sectzo72 10 of Court of Claains Act anapplacable zn clazms under- Section 24 of Workmein’s Compensadzon Act controlling. In claims by employees of State for compensation for accidental injuries, arising,out of and i n t h e course of their employment, Section 24 of said Act is controlling as t o time within which same must be filed and Section 1 0 of the Court. of Claims Act, allowing claims against I %ate to be filed within five years after accrual i s wholly inappllcable.
In his complaint filed in this case on November 22, 1943, the claimant, Verne E. Scott, alleges that he is employed as a janitor in the Chemistry Annex at the University of Illinois; that on April 6, 1942, while carrying steel lockers from the Chemistry Annex to the Huff Gymnasium, he- slipped and fell, sustaining permanent injury in the lower region of his back and spinal column; that despite his injury he continued his work, and on the 16th of April, 1942, while lifting paper towels onto shelves in the janitor's room in the Chemistry Annex, he felt his back "let loose"; that as a result thereof he was hospitalized both in Urbana, Illinois, and at Chicago, Illinois; that he is permanently and totally disabled from pursuing his usual occupation. [*164]
Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was not filed within one year after the date of the accident, in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Illinois Workmen's Compensation Act. That section of the Act provides that the right to file application for compensation shall be barred unless such application is filed within one year after the date of the accident, where no compensation has been paid, or within one year after the date of the last payment of compensation, where any has been paid. It has been repeatedly held by the Illinois Supreme Court that compliance with this section is a condition precedent to the right to maintain proceedings under the Compensation Act. City of Rochelle vs. Industrial Commission, 332 Ill. 386; Inland Rubber Co. vs. Industrial Cornmission, 309 Ill. 43. The decisions of this court are to like effect. Simpson vs. State, 10 C. C. R. 394; Baker vs. State, 10 C. C. R. 111. Furthérmore, in claims by State employees for compensation for accidental injuries, arising out of, and in the course of their employment, Section 24 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is controlling as to time within which such claims must be filed, and Section 10 of the Court of Claims Act allowing claims against the State to be filed within five years after their accrual is wholly inapplicable. Boismenue vs. State, 12 C. C. R. 36. Claimant having failed to comply with Section 24 of the Act, the court is without jurisdiction to make an award.
The motion of the respondent is therefore granted. Case dismissed. [*1] awarded $853.07.)
nant, vs. STATE OF ILLINOIS, ent.
rch 15, 1944.
imant.
rney General; C. ARTHUR eneral, for respondent.
when award for further medical fnder Section 8, paragraph (a) of e employer is obligated to provide njured employee as is reasonably of an accidental injury sustained Act, and further awards for the ere compensation was awarded to lity, and the evidence shows that ' such care is reasonably necessary ch injuries resulting in such dish are reasonable and just.
Claimant was injured on February 2, 1936, in an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment as a Supervisor at the Illinois Soldiers' and Sailors' Children's School at Normal, Illinois. The injury was serious, causing temporary blindness and general paralysis. The facts are fully detailed in the case of Penwell vs. State, 11 C. C. R. 365, in which an award was made to the claimant of $5,500.00 for total permanent disability, $8,215.95 for necessary medical, surgical and hospital services expended or incurred to and including October 22, 1940, and an annual pension of $660.00. On February 10,1942, a further award was made to claimant for medical and hospital expenses incurred from October 22, 1940, to January 1,1942. On March 10, 1943, a further award was made to claimant for medical and hos[*166]pital expenses from January 1, 1942, to December 31, 1942. Claim is now made for an additional award of $980.86 for medical, hospital and nursing: expenses from January 1, 1943, to and including September 30, 1943.
Claimant remains totally paralyzed from the waist down, the paralysis being of a spastic type; her physical condition has not improved. She has no control over her lower limbs, nor over urine and faeces. From January 1, 1943, up to and including September 30, 1943, she has been required, to relieve her of her injury and to prevent deformity and to stimulate circulation and for relief of bedsores, to employ and receive medical services and nursing attention. She remains helpless, requiring the services of nurses or attendants to move her to and from her bed, to change her bed clothing at least three or four times a day, to administer light treatment to the affected parts of her paralyzed body, and to rub her body with ointments prescribed by her physician. During the period in question, she expended, on account of nursing expenses $490.50; for drugs, $97.79; for medical services, $173.00; for hospital expenses, $123.57; for ambulance services to and from hospital, $84.00; and for supplies, $12.00, totalling, $980.86. Claimant has submitted to the court, with her verified petition, the original receipts and vouchers showing payment of these respective items.
This court has heretofore held that under Section 8, paragraph a of the Workmen's Compensation Act, claimant is entitled to such care as is reasonably required to relieve her of the effects of the injury. (Penwell vs.
State, supra.) There has been no change in claimant's physical condition to justify the denial of an award at this time. The award, however, must be confined to such items as are reasonably required. The drugs listed in claimant's itemized statement, including such items as [*167] Vicks Vatronol, aspirins, Lysol, soap, and unexplained drugs, do not appear to have been so required. Furthermore, Item C of claimant's itemized statement of expenses includes a charge of $30.00 for examination of claimant by the Milton H. Berry School. This is not an authorizzed medical expense, nor is it shown to have been necessary to relieve claimant of the effects of her injury. The other services claimed appear to have been reasonably required, and the charges to be reasonable and just.
An award is therefore made to the claimant for medical and hospital expenses from January 1, 1943, to September 30, 1943, in the sum of $853.07, all of which is accrued and is payable forthwith. The court reserves for future determination claimant's need for further medical, surgical and hospital services.