Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Elva Jennings Claimant v. State of Illinois

26 Ill. Ct. Cl. 171 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1967-08-16 No. 3025
Disposition: (No. 3025-Claimant awarded $3,912.47.) Award: $3,912.47 Agency: Illinois Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Children’s School
Cite as: Elva Jennings Claimant v. State of Illinois, 26 Ill. Ct. Cl. 171 (1967)
Legacy General 26 awarded 1960s Elva Jennings Claimant v. State of Illinois 26 Ill. Ct. Cl. 171 1967-08-16 (No. 3025-Claimant awarded $3,912.47.) /opinions/v26-p0212-1/

ELVA JENNINGS Claimant, 'v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, PENWELL, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought reimbursement for nursing care, medical services, and expenses from January 1, 1966 to January 1, 1967, totaling $3,912.47, due to a work-related injury in 1936. The court found the expenditures necessary and awarded the full amount, retaining jurisdiction for future awards.

Claim type: Personal Injury Negligence

Cases cited: Penwell vs. State of Illinois, 11 C.C.R. 365

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

Headnotes

  1. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION Am-supplemental award. Under the authority of Penwell vs. State o f Illinois, 11 C. C. R. 365, claimant awarded expenses incurred for nursing care, drugs, etc., for the period January 1, 1966 to January 1, 1967.

On March 2, 1967, claimant filed her petition for ' reimbursement for monies expended for nursing care and help, medical services and expenses from January 1, 1966 to January 1, 1967. Claimant seeks reimbursement in the sum of $3,912.47.

Claimant was injured on February 2, 1936 in an accident arising out of and in the course of her employ[*172]ment as 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 original case of Penwell vs. State of Illinois, 11 C.C.R. 365, in which an initial award was made, and at which time jurisdiction was retained to make successive awards in the future. - Claimant has attached to her petition as exhibit No. 1 a bill of particulars, which discloses the amounts expended from’January 1, 1966 to January 1, 1967, to be as follows: 1. Nursing and practical help . ... . .. ... ..... $ 1,204.40 2. Room and board for nurses and practical help 730.00 3. Drugs, supplies and miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . 524.57 4. Physicians, hospital and professional services 1,453.50 Total expenses to January 1, 1967.. . .... ...$ 3,912.47 A joint motion of claimant and respondent was filed herein on May 7,1967 asking the Court for leeave to waive the filing of briefs and arguments therein. On that date an order was entered granting the prayer of said motion.

Claimant’s petition clearly alleges that there has been no improvement in her physical condition since the last award, and that her condition requires constant care by physicians and practical nurses. Exhibit No. 2 attached to said petition contains receipts and vouchers for the monies detailed as having been spent in exhibit No. 1. From an examination of the petition and the exhibits, as well as the file in this cause, the Court is of the opinion that the expenditure of such sums of money were necessary for the care of claimant,.

An award is, therefore, made to claimant in the amount of $3,912.47 for the period of time from January 1, 1966 to January 1, 1967. The Court reserves [*173] jurisdiction of this matter for further determination of claimant’s need for additional care.

Official volume 26 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion between: January 10, 1967–June 20, 1969)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.