{ "id": 2889587, "name": "South Chicago Community Hospital, Appellant, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. - (Agustin Gargullo et al., Appellees.)", "name_abbreviation": "South Chicago Community Hospital v. Industrial Commission", "decision_date": "1969-11-26", "docket_number": "41670, 41940 cons.", "first_page": "119", "last_page": "123", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "44 Ill. 2d 119" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "364 Ill. 628", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2585805 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "629" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/364/0628-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 Ill.2d 515", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2779209 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/12/0515-01" ] }, { "cite": "397 Ill. 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2463456 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "200" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/397/0196-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Ill.2d 224", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2882424 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/33/0224-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Ill.2d 45", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2775284 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/13/0045-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 417, "char_count": 6859, "ocr_confidence": 0.819, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.764529552773922e-07, "percentile": 0.8958389079826662 }, "sha256": "ad81fa6ce33f15fa81e8195819b89cc9ae683b95b3a04564afbbbf827cebb095", "simhash": "1:0db70a27842a745b", "word_count": 1146 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:12.938767+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "South Chicago Community Hospital, Appellant, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. \u2014 (Agustin Gargullo et al., Appellees.)" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Kluczynski\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThese two consolidated appeals arise out of workmen\u2019s compensation cases in which the Industrial Commission, over objections by the employer, granted the claimants\u2019 motions for an indefinite continuance of the hearings. To review this decision the employer sued out writs of certiorari in the circuit court of Cook County. The court dismissed the writs on the ground that the Commission\u2019s orders were not final ones, and the first appeal (No. 41670) comes from this action of the circuit court.\nThe employer also filed a petition in the circuit court for a writ of mandamus to compel the members of the Industrial Commission to hear these claims. This petition was denied and the employer appeals directly to this court (No. 41940) on the theory that refusal to grant a prompt hearing creates a denial of constitutional rights.\nThe applications for adjustment of claim were filed against the South Chicago Community Hospital by the surviving dependents, respectively, of two Filipino exchange nurses murdered by an intruder on July 14, 1966. The matters were called for hearing on March 15, 1967, continued at that time to June 15, on which date they were again continued and ordered for hearing on October 23. On the latter date motions were made by the claimants to continue the cases generally. The motions recited that an action had been filed in the circuit court by the administrator of the estates of the two nurses, seeking damages against the hospital, Richard Franklin Speck, the intruder, and others on a basis of fault, and that the hospital had pleaded in defense that the deaths arose out of and in the course of employment and therefore that the sole action was under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. The motions further recited the claimants\u2019 desire to proceed first with the circuit court actions and to have the workmen\u2019s compensation cases held in abeyance until disposition of the wrongful death case. The request was granted over the hospital\u2019s objection. It insists that the object of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act is to provide a prompt remedy and that the Commission has a duty to designate an arbitrator for trial as soon as it is advised of the parties\u2019 failure to agree.\nBefore reaching the principal issue, however, we must consider a motion by the claimants to dismiss the appeal in No. 41670, the workmen\u2019s compensation cases, on the ground that the order appealed from is not final and appeal-able. In the absence of a Supreme Court rule providing for interlocutory review, none being applicable here, an appeal does not lie from an order which is not final. To be final and appealable an order must dispose of the rights of the parties, either upon the entire controversy or upon some definite and separate part of it. Village of Niles v. Szczesny, 13 Ill.2d 45.\nThe order which dismissed writs of certiorari, brought to review, in turn, the granting of a continuance, is plainly interlocutory. It did not decide the right to compensation, nor did it determine a separate issue of the litigation which would result in its final disposition. The claims for compensation are still pending and the rights of the parties remain undetermined. We have recently pointed out that \u201cwhen the circuit court remands a compensation case to the Commission, the action of the court is interlocutory and not appealable.\u201d (Mayrath Co. v. Industrial Com., 33 Ill.2d 224.) While the order in question here did not in terms remand, it had the same effect. The absence of a remanding clause does not make reviewable an order which lacks the essentials of a final judgment. (Moffat Coal Co. v. Industrial Com., 397 Ill. 196, 200.) The motion to dismiss the appeal in No. 41670 is granted.\nThe mandamus case presents the same substantive issue as that sought to be presented in the workmen\u2019s compensation appeal, namely, whether the Commission improperly refused to hear and decide a claim at issue. It is insisted that the \u201crefusal\u201d to determine the issues deprived the hospital of due process and equal protection of the laws. Relied upon is section 19(a) of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, which directs in part that \u201cIt shall be the duty of the Commission upon notification that the parties have failed to reach an agreement, to designate an Arbitrator.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 48, par. 138.19.) Rule No. 6 of the Industrial Commission provides, inter alia, that all cases on second setting shall be continued only \u201cupon good cause shown,\u201d and that when a case has been continued two times it should be marked \u201cOrdered to Trial\u201d and on the next setting shall be tried or dismissed for want of prosecution, \u201cexcept for good cause shown.\u201d\nThe claimants, who were allowed to intervene in the mandamus action, take the position that, by granting a continuance until determination of the circuit court action, the Commission did not \u201crefuse to hear and decide\u201d a claim at issue. Mandamus does not lie to compel action in matters about which an officer has a discretion. Under the circumstances in this case the writ is inappropriate. Where the performance of an official duty or act involves the exercise of judgment or discretion, the officer\u2019s action is not subject to review or control by mandamus. (People ex rel. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Clark, 12 Ill.2d 515.) It is plain in this case that the motions presented to the Commission called for an exercise of judgment or discretion. The court observed in Benton v. Marr, 364 Ill. 628, 629, that \u201cThe granting of a continuance, except where it is based on a statutory cause, rests in the sound judicial discretion of the court.\u201d The exercise of such discretion will not be interfered with unless there is a manifest abuse of that discretion. The rule is equally applicable to workmen\u2019s compensation proceedings. The Industrial Commission, in the exercise of its discretionary power, considered and determined what its course of action was to be, and entered its order accordingly. This was not a refusal to act, as claimed by the hospital, but was in fact action in a particular way, i.e., the granting of a continuance. Whether or not there was good cause is not a proper inquiry in the present proceeding. The ruling is not subject to control by mandamus, and the circuit court properly denied the writ. The judgment in No. 41940 is therefore affirmed.\nAppeal dismissed in No. 41670; Judgment affirmed in No. 41940.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Kluczynski" } ], "attorneys": [ "Klohr, Braun, Lynch & Smith, of Chicago, (Mark A. Braun, of counsel,) for appellant.", "Wachowski & Wachowski, of Chicago, (Casimir R. Wachowski and Stephen J. Schlegel, of counsel,) for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(41670, 41940 cons.\nSouth Chicago Community Hospital, Appellant, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. \u2014 (Agustin Gargullo et al., Appellees.)\nOpinion filed Nov. 26, 1969.\nRehearing denied Jan. 26, 1970.\nKlohr, Braun, Lynch & Smith, of Chicago, (Mark A. Braun, of counsel,) for appellant.\nWachowski & Wachowski, of Chicago, (Casimir R. Wachowski and Stephen J. Schlegel, of counsel,) for appellees." }, "file_name": "0119-01", "first_page_order": 159, "last_page_order": 163 }