TEOMASNORTON, Claimant, ‘v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent. Opiniow filed June 1.8, 1945.
Case summary
Claimant sought workmen's compensation for a foot injury from a ladder fall at East Moline State Hospital. The court denied the claim because the complaint was filed more than one year after the accident, beyond the statutory deadline, and thus the court lacked jurisdiction.
Statutes cited: Section 24 of the Workmen's Compensation Act
Cases cited: Boismenue vs. State, 12 C. C. R. 36; Koleitavs. State, 12 C. C. R. 217; Scott vs. State, 13 C. C. R. 163; 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
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT-making claim for compensation and filing application therefor within time fixed by Bection 24 of Act is a condition precedent to1 jurisdiction of Court. Where the record discloses that no application for compensation was filed by employee within one year after date of injury, no compensation having been paid therefor, the court is without jurisdiction to proceed with hearing on claim filed thereafter.
- CHIEF JUSTICE DAMRON
This complaint was filed on October 10, 1944. It alleges that on the 2nd day of July, 1941, the claimant, Thomas Norton, was employed as an attendant at the East Moline State Hospital in charge of a painter’s detail, and while working on a window located in the women’s infirmary and while standing on a ladder at a height of about fifteen feet, the ladder broke, causing claimant to fall to the ground, striking his right foot and right heel; that as a result of said fall, the claimant received a second degree laceyation of the metatarsal aspect of the foot and heel. An x-ray of the ankle and foot revealed a comminuted fracture of the oscalcis.
The complaint also alleges that all medical, surgical, hospital, qtc., in connection with this injury has been furnished by the State, with the exception of railroad fare paid by this claimant in going to and from Chicago.
He seeks an award under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for twenty-five per cent functional disability to his right foot.
[*245] The Attorney General files 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 provisions of Section 24 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 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 enter an award. Boismenue vs. State, 12 C. C. R. 36; Koleitavs. State, 12 C. C. R. 217; Scott vs. State, 13 C. C. R. 163; 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.
This Court has recently held that Section 24 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 accident where no compensation has been paid, or within one year after the date of the last payment of compensation wherein any has been paid. Scott vs. State, supra.
The complaint shows on its face that the accident occurred on the 2nd day of July; 1941, and that no compensation was paid to claimant subsequent to said injury. It also shows on its face that the complaint was not filed until the 10th day of October, 1944. This Court is without jurisdiction to hear this complaint.
The motion of the respondent is therefore granted. Case dismissed.