{ "id": 2865818, "name": "The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, Appellee, vs. The Industrial Commission et al.-(Raymond Hill, Appellant.)", "name_abbreviation": "Metropolitan Sanitary District v. Industrial Commission", "decision_date": "1967-06-22", "docket_number": "No. 40153", "first_page": "447", "last_page": "450", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "37 Ill. 2d 447" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "333 Ill. 49", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5217063 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/333/0049-01" ] }, { "cite": "363 Ill. 210", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2590272 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/363/0210-01" ] }, { "cite": "399 Ill. 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2460322 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/399/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "409 Ill. 216", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5311131, 5310311 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/409/0216-02", "/ill/409/0216-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 Ill.2d 552", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2714908 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "554" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/8/0552-01" ] }, { "cite": "374 Ill. 500", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2532348 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/374/0500-01" ] }, { "cite": "371 Ill. 273", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2522866 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/371/0273-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Ill.2d 224", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2882424 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/33/0224-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 327, "char_count": 4791, "ocr_confidence": 0.8, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.818464577563402e-07, "percentile": 0.7188675864886331 }, "sha256": "d74d79f4687e5fd33dc06d5c7916abf0a9a4894314103db738d0d8633c5816a2", "simhash": "1:9c1d62876a1e4579", "word_count": 775 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:03.944089+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, Appellee, vs. The Industrial Commission et al.\u2014(Raymond Hill, Appellant.)" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Schaefer\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe first question that arises upon the record in this workmen\u2019s compensation case is whether a circuit court has jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order of the Industrial Commission. We hold that it does not.\nOn September 26, 1961, Raymond Hill, the claimant, experienced a tightness in his chest while he was pursuing his usual duties as an employee of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago. He went at once to the first aid room, and was subsequently hospitalized for nearly a month and treated by heart specialists. He filed an application for adjustment of claim under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, and at the hearing before the arbitrator the parties stipulated that the only issue in dispute was the amount he should receive by way of reimbursement for medical bills he had paid. On October 14, 1963, the arbitrator found that the claimant had sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, and awarded him the sum of $2,071.41 for necessary first aid, medical, surgical and hospital services. No attempt was made to review this award.\nOn August 31, 1964, the claimant filed a petition for review pursuant to section 19(h) of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, which provides that an award \u201cunder this Act providing for compensation in installments\u201d may be reviewed by the Commission at the request of either the employer or employee, on the ground that the disability of the employee has subsequently recurred, increased, diminished or ended. \u201cOn such review compensation payments may be re-established, increased, diminished or ended.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap. 48, par. 138.19(h).\nThe employer moved to dismiss the petition, the Commission denied the motion, and on certiorari the circuit court of Cook County reversed. The claimant has appealed.\nSection 19 authorizes review of a \u201cdecision\u201d of the Commission by the circuit court on statutory certiorari. While the statute does not directly define the term \u201cdecision\u201d, its provisions clearly show that a final determination by the Commission is contemplated, for the \u201cdecision\u201d of the Commission which is reviewable is \u201cconclusive unless reviewed\u201d by the circuit court, and in the absence of judicial review the entry of a judgment in accordance with the \u201cdecision\u201d of the Commission is authorized. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap. 48, par. I38.19(f),(g)). Nothing in the act suggests that judicial review of interlocutory orders of the Commission was intended.\nWhile the precise question involved in this case does not appear to have arisen, numerous decisions in analogous situations support the conclusion that only final determinations of the Commission are reviewable. In Mayrath Co. v. Industrial Com., 33 Ill.2d 224, for example, the Commission had vacated its earlier order of dismissal and ordered the claimant\u2019s application set for hearing before an arbitrator. The employer then brought the matter before the circuit court on certiorari. The circuit court affirmed the Commission, and the emplo)'er appealed to this court. The appeal was dismissed because the order of the circuit court remanding the case to the Commission was interlocutory, and not appealable. While the opinion of this court is couched in terms of its own jurisdiction upon appeal, there is no reason to distinguish between the jurisdiction of this court and the circuit court so far as the reviewability of \u201cdecisions\u201d of the Commission are concerned. Similar results have been reached in many other cases. See, e.g., Brown Shoe Co., Inc. v. Industrial Com., 371 Ill. 273; Brown Shoe Co., Inc. v. Industrial Com., 374 Ill. 500.\nTills determination does not foreclose the employer from seeking review of the ruling upon the motion to dismiss after the Commission reaches a final-decision. The Act provides that a circuit court has the power \"to review all questions of law and fact presented\u201d by the entire record. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap. 48, par. 138.19(f)(1); and see A.C.F. Industries, Inc. v. Industrial Com., 8 Ill.2d 552, 554; Northwestern University v. Industrial Com., 409 Ill. 216; American Manganese Steel Co. v. Industrial Com., 399 Ill. 272; Gray Knox Marble Co. v. Industrial Com., 363 Ill. 210; Yellow Cab Co. v. Industrial Com., 333 Ill. 49.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the Industrial Commission.\nVacated and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Schaefer" } ], "attorneys": [ "Scott J. Vitell, and John Iacono, both of Chicago, ( Sidney A. Karasik, of counsel,) for appellant.", "George A. Lane and Sidney B. Baker, both of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 40153.\nThe Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, Appellee, vs. The Industrial Commission et al.\u2014(Raymond Hill, Appellant.)\nOpinion filed June 22, 1967.\nScott J. Vitell, and John Iacono, both of Chicago, ( Sidney A. Karasik, of counsel,) for appellant.\nGeorge A. Lane and Sidney B. Baker, both of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0447-01", "first_page_order": 447, "last_page_order": 450 }