{ "id": 3092716, "name": "PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Ronald L. Griffith, Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "PPG Industries, Inc. v. Industrial Commission", "decision_date": "1982-06-18", "docket_number": "No. 55484", "first_page": "438", "last_page": "444", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "91 Ill. 2d 438" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "48 Ill. 2d 131", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2908230 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "134" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/48/0131-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 Ill. 2d 45", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3069036 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "56" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/79/0045-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 Ill. 2d 274", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2937263 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "277" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/55/0274-01" ] }, { "cite": "305 Ill. 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2430302 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/305/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "310 Ill. 409", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5108360 ], "year": 1922, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/310/0409-01" ] }, { "cite": "311 Ill. 472", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5114957 ], "year": 1923, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/311/0472-01" ] }, { "cite": "321 Ill. 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5167906 ], "year": 1924, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/321/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "340 Ill. 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5247522 ], "year": 1926, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "312" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/340/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 Ill. 2d 180", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5450276 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "188" }, { "page": "188" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/71/0180-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 477, "char_count": 9106, "ocr_confidence": 0.743, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.786728186631938e-07, "percentile": 0.7143464734816586 }, "sha256": "dde83db0827d5f64e6ec3c7ebce4f9e0e5829510dec6ba6f64d761a79798fa0e", "simhash": "1:e8677227e9625c13", "word_count": 1478 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:04:00.855642+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Ronald L. Griffith, Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE MORAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPPG Industries, Inc. (PPG), appeals an order of the circuit court of Macon County which confirmed the decision of the Industrial Commission dismissing its review as untimely filed.\nThe facts, which are not in dispute, indicate that the claimant, Ronald Griffith, filed an application for adjustment of a claim alleging that he suffered certain injuries during the course of his employment as a laborer at PPG. The arbitrator issued his original decision on July 20, 1979. He concluded, inter alia, that the claimant suffered an industrial injury and was entitled to receive $198.80 per week for 17 weeks as compensation for temporary total incapacity. The decision was filed with the Commission on July 25, 1979. PPG concedes that it received the decision on July 30 and alleges that on the same day it mailed a petition for review to the Commission.\nOn August 3, the Commission sent a letter to the parties, indicating that the arbitrator was recalling his original decision due to a clerical error. The corrected decision, issued on August 7, and filed with the Commission on August 8, provided that the claimant was entitled to compensation for temporary total incapacity for a period of 262/? weeks instead of the 17 weeks originally ordered. PPG states that it returned its copy of the original decision as requested and received the corrected decision on August 16, 1979. It did not file a new petition for review with the Commission or amend its original petition subsequent to the issuance of the corrected decision.\nAfter oral arguments, the Commission dismissed PPG\u2019s appeal as \u201cpremature and not in accordance with the statute.\u201d The arbitrator\u2019s corrected decision was affirmed by the Commission. PPG then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the circuit court, and the claimant filed a special and limited appearance contesting the court\u2019s jurisdiction. The court confirmed the Commission\u2019s decision, ruling that it was \u201cnot contrary to the facts or law.\u201d PPG appeals directly to this court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 302(a) (73 Ill. 2d R. 302(a)).\nThe sole issue presented concerns the propriety of the Commission dismissing PPG\u2019s review on the grounds that it was not filed in accordance with the applicable statute.\nSection 19(f) of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 48, par. 138.19(f)) provides:\n\u201cThe decision of the Commission acting within its powers *** shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive unless reviewed as in this paragraph hereinafter provided. However, the Arbitrator or the Commission may on his or its own motion, or on the motion of either party, correct any clerical error or errors in computation within 15 days after the date of receipt of any award by such Arbitrator or any decision on review of the Commission and shall have the power to recall the original award on arbitration or decision on review, and issue in lieu thereof such corrected award or decision. Where such correction is made the time for appeal or review herein specified, shall begin to run from the date of the receipt of the corrected award or decision.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nPPG initially contends that the arbitrator\u2019s corrected decision is \u201cvoid\u201d because it was not \u201cissued\u201d within 15 days from submission of the original decision. This contention is without merit. It has been held that \u201c[s]ection 19(f) *** [is] consistent with accepted procedural practice only if [it is] interpreted to provide (1) that the arbitrator, the Commission or either party must submit any motion to correct clerical or computational errors within 15 days after the receipt of the arbitrator\u2019s findings ***.\u201d (International Harvester v. Industrial Com. (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 180, 188.) The 15-day limitation applies to the time an original opinion must be recalled and not to the time in which the corrected decision must be \u201cissued.\u201d Here, PPG received the arbitrator\u2019s original findings on July 30. It was informed by the Commission\u2019s letter dated August 3 that the decision was recalled. This was well within the 15-day period allowed under the section.\nPPG argues that, even if the arbitrator\u2019s corrected decision is valid, the section should not be construed so as to deprive it of review on the merits before the Commission where a petition was timely filed following the original decision of the arbitrator. This court has held \u201cthat the right to review the decision of the arbitrator by the Industrial Commission is entirely statutory and the party desiring the review must follow the statute strictly.\u201d (Cooke v. Industrial Com. (1930), 340 Ill. 309, 312, citing Benton Coal Mining Co. v. Industrial Com. (1926), 321 Ill. 208; Gould Construction Co. v. Industrial Com. (1924), 311 Ill. 472; Gregory v. Industrial Com. (1923), 310 Ill. 409; Oelsner v. Industrial Com. (1922), 305 Ill. 158; cf. Berry v. Industrial Com. (1973), 55 Ill. 2d 274, 277 (parties seeking review of the Commission\u2019s decision must comply with all the statutory conditions).) The emphasized portion of section 19(f), quoted above, applies to recalled decisions of the arbitrator or Commission. We construe the provision to mean that a party seeking review must file a petition within the times specified after receipt of the corrected decision.\nParties that adhere to the prescribed review procedures will not be deprived of a hearing on the merits. They are accorded specified periods to file a petition from the date of receipt of the corrected decision. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 48, pars. 138.19(b), (f).) In an appropriate case, depending upon the circumstances, it may only be necessary to amend a petition for review filed prior to the issuance of a corrected decision.\nFurther, we believe that the decision in International Harvester v. Industrial Com. (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 180, although not directly in point, supports our interpretation of section 19(f). There the employer filed a motion with the Commission, pursuant to the section, requesting a correction in the Commission\u2019s original decision. While the petition was still pending, the employer filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the circuit court. The Commission subsequently entered an order denying the petition, after which the employer failed to file another petition for a writ of certiorari. It was held that the claimant\u2019s motion to dismiss the action, on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction, should have been granted. In so holding, the court stated \u201cthat, upon the timely submission of [a motion to correct errors], the arbitrator or the Commission shall retain exclusive jurisdiction over the cause until said motion is finally resolved; and *** that any petition for a writ of certiorari filed prior to the resolution of a motion to correct such errors is premature, in that it is based on a decision which is not final and appealable.\u201d (71 Ill. 2d 180, 188; see also Wilson-Raymond Constructors Co. v. Industrial Com. (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 45, 56 (same principle by implication); Zbilski v. Industrial Com. (1971), 48 Ill. 2d 131, 134.) While International Harvester involved an appeal from the Commission\u2019s decision, consistency requires the same result in a review of the arbitrator\u2019s decision, since section 19(f) does not distinguish between procedures provided for review of an arbitrator\u2019s award or for appeal of a decision of the Commission.\nPPG places great emphasis on the dissenting opinions in International Harvester. It should be noted that the primary facts relied upon in the dissents are not present in the instant case. In International Harvester, the petition to correct an error was denied. Therefore, the original decision from which the employer appealed was not altered, and the dissents believed that the sentence in section 19(f), providing for appeals of corrected awards, was not applicable. In the instant case, the arbitrator\u2019s decision was corrected, and the relevancy of section 19(f) is even more clear under this circumstance.\nFurther, the employer in International Harvester requested that the Commission correct its decision to reflect that $3,576 had been paid to the claimant through a nonoceupational group insurance plan. The dissents concluded that this request for a credit was not a clerical or computational error within the meaning of section 19(f). In the instant case, the arbitrator corrected the number of weeks upon which the rate of compensation payable was determined. This is clearly an error in computation to which section 19(f) applies.\nFor the reasons stated, we hold that PPG\u2019s petition for review to the Commission was premature and thus did not conform to the applicable statutory requirement. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE MORAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Hull, Campbell, Robinson & Gibson, of Decatur (Jon D. Robinson, of counsel), for appellant.", "Scheele, Serkland & Boyle, Ltd., of Chicago (James C. Serkland, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 55484.\nPPG INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Ronald L. Griffith, Appellee).\nOpinion filed June 18, 1982.\nHull, Campbell, Robinson & Gibson, of Decatur (Jon D. Robinson, of counsel), for appellant.\nScheele, Serkland & Boyle, Ltd., of Chicago (James C. Serkland, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0438-01", "first_page_order": 450, "last_page_order": 456 }