{
  "id": 3529658,
  "name": "NAAMON JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al., Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Johnson v. Board of Review",
  "decision_date": "1985-06-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 83\u20142984",
  "first_page": "992",
  "last_page": "994",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "133 Ill. App. 3d 992"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "371 N.E.2d 232",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Ill. App. 3d 123",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3411833
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/55/0123-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 290,
    "char_count": 4257,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.751,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.875742183396918e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3682911629210815
    },
    "sha256": "9e8a29f633b568b443966f37ed1fbd7f8de456d9450771fcfc6cd82d3a3c53a9",
    "simhash": "1:dbabf08bcae906d3",
    "word_count": 681
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:42:49.711724+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "NAAMON JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al., Defendants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McGLOON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendants, the Board of Review of the Illinois Department of Labor, Bruce Barnes, the Board\u2019s chairman, E. Allen Bernard!, director of the Illinois Department of Labor, and Goldblatt Brothers, Inc., appeal from an order reversing the Board\u2019s decision denying plaintiff unemployment benefits. On appeal, defendants contend (1) the decision of the Board was supported by the record and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and (2) the absence of information from the record warrants remand for consideration of the information.\nWe affirm.\nPlaintiff Naamon Johnson applied to the Illinois Department of Labor for unemployment insurance benefits. The claim\u2019s adjudicator determined that Johnson was not \u201cavailable and actively seeking work,\u201d as required by section 500(C) of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 48, par. 420(C)) and denied benefits for the period February 22, 1981, through July 5, 1981. Plaintiff appealed and requested that certification forms which he had filed with the Department be considered at the hearing. The forms listed plaintiff\u2019s job contacts and were filed by plaintiff every two weeks, as required by the Department\u2019s rules. The Department never submitted the forms. After a hearing during which plaintiff testified about his job contacts and his availability for work, the referee found that plaintiff was not available for and actively seeking work. The Board of Review also affirmed the denial of benefits.\nPlaintiff filed an action under the Administrative Review Law (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 110, par. 3 \u2014 101 et seq.). The complaint alleged that the decision denying benefits violated section 801 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 48, par. 471) because the Department failed to supply the certification forms. It further alleged that the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court reversed the final administrative decision and ordered that the benefits for the period in question be awarded to plaintiff.\nThe only issue raised by defendants which is relevant to the disposition of this appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying their request to remand the case. Defendants contend the cause should have been remanded for consideration of the certification forms. We disagree.\nSection 801 of the Unemployment Insurance Act provides in part: \u201cAt any hearing, the record of the claimant\u2019s registration for work, or the claimant\u2019s certification that, during the week or weeks affected by the hearing, he was able to work, available for work, and actively seeking work, or any document in the files of the Bureau of Employment Security submitted to it by any of the parties, shall be a part of the record, and shall be competent evidence bearing upon the issues.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 48, par. 471.)\nUnder this statute, the Department of Labor was required to submit certification forms which it had in its possession. Defendants admit that the forms were not part of the record before the referee or the Board of Appeals in this case. This error is made more egregious by the failure to submit them even after plaintiff requested that they be presented to the reviewers.\nThe well-established rule is that a party cannot commit error and then seek to benefit from it. (See American State Bank v. County of Woodford (1977), 55 Ill. App. 3d 123, 371 N.E.2d 232.) Thus, defendants should not be permitted to rely on the error and rehear a matter which should have been adjudicated properly in the first instance.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed. Because of our decision, we need not address the other issue raised.\nJudgment affirmed.\nCAMPBELL and BUCKLEY, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McGLOON"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, of Springfield (Susan C. Weidel, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.",
      "John B. Judkins and Jeffrey B. Gilbert, both of Legal Assistance Foundation, of Chicago, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NAAMON JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 83\u20142984\nOpinion filed June 10, 1985.\nNeil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, of Springfield (Susan C. Weidel, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.\nJohn B. Judkins and Jeffrey B. Gilbert, both of Legal Assistance Foundation, of Chicago, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0992-01",
  "first_page_order": 1014,
  "last_page_order": 1016
}