{ "id": 8498662, "name": "FRANCES M. EDGCOMB, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Board of Education, District No. 150, Appellee and Cross-Appellant)", "name_abbreviation": "Edgcomb v. Industrial Commission", "decision_date": "1989-04-07", "docket_number": "No. 3\u201488\u20140044WC", "first_page": "398", "last_page": "409", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "181 Ill. App. 3d 398" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "97 Ill. 2d 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5516101 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/97/0237-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 Ill. 2d 514", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3082762 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "520" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/88/0514-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 Ill. 2d 100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3092887 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/91/0100-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 Ill. 2d 236", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3161050 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/101/0236-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1038, "char_count": 27252, "ocr_confidence": 0.752, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0417561518279478e-07, "percentile": 0.5510068347614089 }, "sha256": "ed4a63c2ac98f30a5d5fe1e1884f6846c05341ac67876e8a189fc6fb21641e72", "simhash": "1:ef2dc905bcb14b3c", "word_count": 4375 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:30:31.344826+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "BARRY, P.J., and McNAMARA and LEWIS, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "FRANCES M. EDGCOMB, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Board of Education, District No. 150, Appellee and Cross-Appellant)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE WOODWARD\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nClaimant, Frances Edgcomb, filed an application for adjustment of claim under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 48, par. 138.1 et seq.) for a work-related incident which occurred on March 24, 1981. Claimant alleged that, while driving a school bus in respondent\u2019s employ, she suffered neck injuries in a collision with an automobile. The arbitrator awarded claimant 376h weeks of temporary total disability (TTD) and found her condition had not yet reached a level of permanency. The Industrial Commission (Commission) modified the arbitrator\u2019s award of TTD to 246/7 weeks and found there was no causal relationship between the March 24, 1981, accident and claimant\u2019s cervical surgery performed on October 27, 1981. Though noting that it would not have reached the same result as the Commission, the circuit court of Peoria County confirmed the Commission\u2019s decision and denied respondent\u2019s motion to dismiss claimant\u2019s writ of certiorari for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This appeal followed.\nOn appeal, claimant argues that the Commission\u2019s decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Respondent\u2019s cross-appeal argues that the circuit court of Peoria County did not acquire special statutory subject matter jurisdiction over this case. We address claimant\u2019s appeal first.\nOn March 24, 1981, claimant was employed by respondent as a bus driver. She was operating a bus that was struck from behind by an automobile; the impact caused claimant to be thrown between the steering gear and the door. Claimant testified that the impact was \u201csevere.\u201d Following the accident, she was treated for neck, shoulder, and lower back pain by her family physician, Dr. Thomas Cassidy, an internist. She was hospitalized from March 27 to April 10, during which time she underwent physical therapy and received pain-killing medications. Following her release, she was maintained by Dr. Cas-sidy on a conservative treatment regimen, consisting of physical therapy, pain medication, muscle relaxants, and minor tranquilizers. Claimant testified that following her release from the hospital, she continued to feel pain and stiffness in her neck and occasional numbness and shooting pain in her right arm and fingers.\nWhile in the hospital following the accident and upon being discharged, claimant was treated by Dr. 0. Sureka, a physician with the Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Dr. Sureka examined claimant on March 30, 1981. He observed tenderness at the back of the cervical and lumbar spine. Movement of the cervical spine was painful at terminal 10 degrees of forward flexion, extension, and lateral rotation. He noted moderate muscle spasms of paraspinal muscles in the cervical and thoraco-lumbar area. Also, he detected a slightly diminished sensation in the right thumb. On May 18, 1981, Dr. Sureka observed that movement of claimant\u2019s cervical spine was restricted beyond 30 degrees in forward flexion, extension, lateral flexion, and rotation. On June 15, 1981, Dr. Sureka noted that claimant\u2019s ability to move her cervical spine had improved but she was still experiencing pain in the back of the neck. He also noted decreased sensation in her right hand to touch and pain. On July 21, claimant was again examined by Dr. Sureka, who noted a tenderness at the base of the cervical spine. He found that movement of claimant\u2019s cervical spine was painful. The results of the July 21 electromy-ographic and nerve conduction tests performed by Dr. Sureka were normal.\nDuring her treatment program with Dr. Sureka, claimant attended physical therapy on a weekly basis, wore a cervical collar, used cervical traction equipment at home, and took muscle relaxants, analgesics, and minor tranquilizers to relieve her symptoms. Claimant evidently stopped seeing Dr. Sureka in or about July. The record does not indicate the reason for this termination.\nAt the respondent\u2019s request, claimant was examined by Dr. Lorin Whittaker, a surgeon, on July 23, 1981. He reported that claimant experienced stiffness in the posterior neck, which caused her to proceed in a cautious manner during the exam. She could hyperextend, flex, rotate, and laterally bend her neck to essentially a normal degree, but her capacity to perform these neck movements varied from one time to another. Claimant\u2019s neck contour was normal, and no muscle spasm was noted. It was Dr. Whittaker\u2019s impression that she had sustained a flexion-extension type of injury and that she was still experiencing some symptoms of cervical strain. Nevertheless, he opined that claimant could return to work on August 15.\nClaimant\u2019s treating physician, Dr. Thomas Cassidy, saw claimant on numerous occasions while she was first in the hospital following her accident and upon her discharge. His notes dated from April to September 1981 describe claimant\u2019s ongoing cervical spine problems. On May 4, he observed that claimant had increased range of motion of the cervical spine but that she was still experiencing substantial pain with flexion, extension, and rotation. On June 1, he noted that claimant had a fair range of motion in both flexion of the neck, but less than full. On July 7, 1981, he observed that claimant was experiencing a lot of tenderness with range of motion in any direction. During office examinations on August 4 and August 25, Dr. Cassidy observed that claimant was experiencing considerable neck spasms and lack of range of neck motion.\nAt the request of Dr. Cassidy, claimant was examined by Dr. Jesse Weinger, an orthopedic surgeon, on September 14, 1981. Dr. Weinger found that claimant\u2019s motor strength and sensory examinations were within normal limits and that she had full range of motion of her cervical spine. Dr. Weinger noted claimant\u2019s complaints of neck stiffness and discomfort and opined that these complaints were out of proportion with objective findings. He found no evidence to suggest a cervical disc protrusion or significant ligament instability. Dr. Weinger thought that claimant could return to work and made no suggestions for further medical care. Claimant testified that this examination lasted approximately seven minutes.\nDr. Cassidy\u2019s note regarding his September 22 examination of claimant states:\n\u201c0: Examwise she has pain when you turn her head to the right and when you extend it and flex it to the point where it stops her moving it. She has had no definitive abnormal neuro-logic findings or EMG findings throughout this whole thing[;] however, her physical findings are definitely abnormal with regards to ROM (range of motion).\nA: I think she has to remain off work until she has much freer ROM to the cervical spine and much less pain. Her job is driving a bus, and I think it is too dangerous to send her back to work.\nP: I will see her in about a month. Continue her other medications.\u201d\n(It is apparent to us that the O, A, and P in the note above stand for observation, assessment, and prescription, respectively.)\nIn a letter dated September 25, Dr. Cassidy wrote to claimant\u2019s counsel that he had most recently seen claimant on September 22, at which time she was still complaining of moderately severe pain in the neck. Dr. Cassidy noted that she still had decreased range of motion to both lateral rotations of the neck and sudden pains were induced by extreme flexion and extension of the neck. Despite Dr. Weinger\u2019s recommendation, Dr. Cassidy found it impossible to permit claimant\u2019s return to work, which involved full painless neck and shoulder rotations in order to insure the safety of her passengers.\nClaimant\u2019s attorney referred her to Dr. Lawrence Holden, a neurosurgeon, for an examination. At his deposition taken on December 16, 1981, Dr. Holden stated that he had been in private practice since 1949. When he examined claimant on September 30, she complained of pain in the right side of her neck and in her right shoulder. His neurological examination revealed that there was restriction of neck motion in all directions, the cranial nerves were intact, and there was tenderness to percussion in the low cervical region and claimant\u2019s pain radiated into the ulnar aspect of the right hand. Dr. Holden admitted claimant into St. Francis Hospital on October 1 for a conservative treatment (bed rest and muscle relaxants), which failed to alter her symptoms.\nOn October 27, claimant underwent neck surgery, in which Dr. Holden performed a hemilaminectomy at the C7-T1 interspace. He observed a bulging in the anterior wall of the spinal canal and removed the bone and soft tissues behind the nerve. This procedure was intended to alleviate pressure on the affected nerve. Dr. Holden stated that the nerves emanating from the C7-T1 area went to the ulnar aspect of the hand. Claimant remained hospitalized until November 3.\nDr. Holden had seen claimant several times since her discharge from the hospital. He had not determined the strength in her right arm or the range of motion in her neck. He stated that claimant was not ready to return to work, as she was still recovering from surgery. He also opined that the bulge in the anterior wall of claimant\u2019s spinal column might or could have been caused by the March 24 accident.\nOn cross-examination, he stated that he had recorded claimant\u2019s complaints upon first seeing her on September 30 rather than neurologically examining her. Upon admittance to the hospital the following day, Dr. Holden examined claimant but did not perform grip strength, pinprick, or reflex tests. He stated that C7-T1 was a common area for a whiplash type of injury to occur. He testified that he did not perform electromyographic or nerve conduction studies or a myelogram because he found them to be inadequate tests. Dr. Holden added that he did not routinely perform these tests.\nFurther, on cross-examination, Dr. Holden stated that he interpreted claimant\u2019s tenderness in the low cervical region as objective. The pain was confined to one area, which was appropriate to surgical findings. When percussion was applied to this area, it was accompanied by muscle spasms, a result which objectively supported claimant\u2019s subjective complaints. Prior to surgery, Dr. Holden noted muscle spasms in claimant\u2019s neck; these spasms accompanied her restriction of neck motion. In surgery, he found a bulge in the anterior walls of spinal canal at the C7-T1 level. Prior to claimant\u2019s discharge from the hospital following surgery, he did not perform any tests as to claimant\u2019s range of neck or arm motion. Dr. Holden opined that claimant would probably return to work within the next two months.\nThe Commission found that as a result of the March 24, 1981, accident, claimant was temporarily totally disabled from March 25, 1981, to September 14, 1981. The Commission based its opinion on the September 14 examination of Dr. Weinger, who opined that claimant could immediately return to work. Further, from Dr. Holden\u2019s testimony, the Commission emphasized the following facts. Dr. Holden, prior to performing surgery, did not test claimant for loss of grip strength or loss of sensation. He did not administer reflex tests and ordered no myelogram, EMG, or nerve conduction studies. The Commission also focused on the fact that no disc material was removed during the operation.\nIt is axiomatic that a reviewing court will not disturb the Commission\u2019s decision unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. (Certi-Serve, Inc. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 236.) We find that the manifest weight of the evidence supports the claimant. The only physician to internally examine claimant\u2019s cervical spine was Dr. Holden. During surgery, he detected bulging in the anterior wall. To correct this condition, he removed some of the bone, ligaments, and soft tissue at the C7-T1 interspace. The fact that Dr. Holden did not remove any disc material, which the Commission found so significant, does not negate the necessity of this surgery. This surgical procedure was intended to lessen or remove the pressure on the nerve which passes through this area of the cervical spine. He did not perform a myelogram or nerve conduction test because he viewed them as inadequate to determine claimant\u2019s actual condition. There is no evidence that either of these tests would have conclusively determined claimant\u2019s condition. He initially prescribed conservative therapy, which is a common measure taken to alleviate claimant\u2019s symptoms. Claimant received conservative therapy in the hospital from October 1 to October 26 because Dr. Holden believed that she could obtain a more complete bed rest there than at home. The hospital records related to this stay are replete with many references to claimant\u2019s ongoing complaints of cervical pain radiating to her right shoulder, arm, and hand. The muscle relaxants, cervical traction, and other conservative measures had little positive impact on claimant\u2019s cervical pain and frequent pain and numbness in her right arm and hand. Dr. Holden then performed surgery on claimant\u2019s cervical spine. Almost two months after the surgery, Dr. Holden stated that claimant was not ready to return to work.\nContrary to respondent\u2019s assertions, Dr. Holden\u2019s decision to perform surgery was based in part on objective findings. Percussion applied to claimant\u2019s low cervical region produced pain which was confirmed by surgical findings. Further, the muscle spasms induced by percussion to this region served as objective evidence of claimant\u2019s complaints. Dr. Holden also observed muscle spasms in claimant\u2019s cervical spine directly prior to surgery.\nHis view was echoed by claimant\u2019s treating physician, Dr. Cas-sidy. He found that as of September 22, 1981, claimant still had decreased motion of her neck and that sudden pains were induced by extreme flexion and tension of the neck. At that time, Dr. Cassidy could not recommend claimant\u2019s return to work.\nAlso, during office examinations on August 4 and 25, Dr. Cassidy noted muscle spasms in claimant\u2019s lower cervical spine. This evidence further buttresses Dr. Holden\u2019s decision to operate.\nIn the report of Dr. Sureka\u2019s examination on July 21, which indicated normal results in electromyograph and nerve conduction tests, he states that there was a tenderness at the base of the cervical spine and that movement of the cervical spine produced pain. This tenderness and pain were consistent throughout all claimant\u2019s examinations following her March 24, 1981, accident.\nThe Commission\u2019s decision is based principally on Dr. Weinger\u2019s cursory examination of claimant. Claimant\u2019s unrebutted testimony is that Dr. Weinger examined her for approximately seven minutes. We note that he did not perform a myelogram, EMG, or nerve conduction study on the claimant. The Commission evidently considered Dr. Holden deficient for failing to perform these various tests, but, contradictorily, paid no attention to Dr. Weinger\u2019s failure to perform said tests. Either both are deficient for failing to perform the relevant tests or neither one is. Dr. Weinger tested claimant\u2019s sensory response, motor strength, and range of motion, all of which produced normal results. He also studied neck X rays taken on March 24 and 28, 1981. He noted no muscle spasms. Believing claimant's reports of neck stiffness and discomfort were out of proportion to his objective findings, he recommended that claimant return immediately to work. Dr. Whittaker\u2019s examination of July 23 generally mirrors this assessment. On balance, we find the evidence obtained from Drs. Holden, Cassidy, and Sureka, gleaned from extensive examination of and contact with claimant, clearly outweighs that of Dr. Weinger.\nThe cases cited by respondent, Elliott v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 100, and Odie v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1982), 88 Ill. 2d 514, are distinguishable from the instant case. In Elliott, the amount and weight of medical testimony proferred by the employer obviously outweighed the testimony of the one neurosurgeon who supported the claimant\u2019s contentions. Here, the weight of medical testimony, in the form of both the treating and operating physicians, favors claimant. The only evidence cited by the Commission, the records of Dr. Weinger, does not serve to overcome the evidence from claimant\u2019s medical experts. Further, in Odie, unlike the instant case, there was ample evidence to find that the subject surgical procedure was not causally connected to a job-related injury. The Odie petitioner, who had allegedly injured his lower back while working, responded well to conservative therapy and was discharged by his treating physician. In the 41/2 months following this discharge, petitioner went hunting and walked a good deal. Despite a myelogram test results, and another physician\u2019s opinion to the contrary, a surgeon attempted to perform a laminectomy. During surgery, the petitioner was found not to have a herniated disc or any other related problem. The Odie court concluded: \u201cReluctant as we are to set aside the independent judgment of the operating physician, the facts here so clearly justify the conclusion that the lumbar fusion was not reasonably required that we cannot say the Commission erred.\u201d (Emphasis added.) 88 Ill. 2d at 520.\nIn the instant case, the claimant suffered ongoing symptoms of a cervical spine injury. Her treating physician never discharged her, and she did not respond well to conservative therapy. Most importantly, the operating physician found objective evidence of pressure on a nerve root and, consequently, performed a hemilaminectomy in which he removed fragments of bone and soft tissues. Moreover, Odie, which indicates that reviewing courts should only reluctantly set aside the operating physician\u2019s assessment, serves to support our decision that the Commission\u2019s decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nNext, respondent argues that claimant failed to comply with the requirements of section 19(f)(1) of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 48, par. 138.19(f)(1)). Specifically, respondent argues that claimant failed to commence the proceeding for review within 20 days of the receipt of the notice of the decision of the Commission, and as a result, the circuit court did not acquire special statutory subject matter jurisdiction to review this case.\nThe presumption of subject matter jurisdiction does not exist in cases under the Act, because the court is exercising a special statutory jurisdiction and compliance with the statute must appear on the record. Bemis Co. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1983), 97 Ill. 2d 237.\nThe affidavit filed by claimant\u2019s counsel, John Lesaganich, states that the Commission\u2019s notice of decision was received by this office on June 12, 1984. Thus, the last day to file for judicial review was July 2, 1984. Lesaganich then stated that on June 29, 1984, claimant\u2019s Counsel filed with the circuit court of Peoria County a praecipe for writ^ of certiorari, a writ of scire facias, and certificate of mailing writs \\of scire facias and certiorari (hereinafter documents). The attorneys of record for respondent were mistakenly listed as Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen and not Henry D. Noetzel and Associates. The affidavit further avers that a secretary from Le-saganich\u2019s firm retrieved the original copy of the above documents filed with the circuit court and corrected the attorneys of record to properly reflect respondent\u2019s attorney.\nThe reverse sides of the documents reveal that they were originally filed with the court at 4:24 p.m. on June 29, 1984. Although the filing stamp on the front of each of them, without explanation, has been \u201cwhited out,\u201d none of the documents presently exhibits a filing stamp on its face. The writ of scire facias and writ of certio-rari each bears the date of July 3, 1984, with the word \u201cJune\u201d crossed out and July inserted.\nRespondent argues that the evidence clearly demonstrates that the disputed documents were filed on July 3, 1984, and, therefore, claimant did not file within the 20-day statutory period. Given this record, we do not share respondent\u2019s certitude that claimant did not meet the statutory requirements.\nOn one hand, Lesaganich\u2019s affidavit said that the documents were filed on June 29, as indicated on the reverse side of the documents. On the other hand, the documents bear the date of July 3, 1984. There is no filing stamp on the documents or other evidence to clearly determine this issue. To invoke the strict and literal intent of the statute and thereby void claimant\u2019s appeal, we need clear evidence of failure to meet the statute\u2019s 20-day requirement. Such evidence is not in this record. Accordingly, we find that the circuit court of Peoria County correctly denied respondent\u2019s motion to dismiss the writ of certiorari for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.\nIn conclusion, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court confirming the Commission\u2019s decision and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nBARRY, P.J., and McNAMARA and LEWIS, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE WOODWARD" }, { "text": "JUSTICE McCULLOUGH,\nconcurring in part and dissenting in part:\nThe Industrial Commission found that on September 14, 1981, the petitioner was examined by Dr. Weinger, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Weinger found that there was no evidence to suggest a cervical disc protrusion or significant ligament instability. It was Dr. Weinger\u2019s opinion that the petitioner could go back to work on a regular duty status. With respect to Dr. Holden\u2019s examination and surgery, the Industrial Commission found that he performed a laminec-tomy at the C7-T1 and that prior to performing the surgery he did not test the petitioner for loss of grip strength or loss of sensation, did not administer reflex tests, ordered no myelogram, EMG or nerve conduction studies and that pursuant to the surgery no disc material was removed.\nThe Commission\u2019s finding that there was no causal relationship between the March 24, 1981, accident and the claimant\u2019s cervical surgery performed on October 27, 1981, is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Keeping in mind that Dr. Weinger examined the petitioner at the request of Dr. Cassidy, who was also petitioner\u2019s doctor, Dr. Weinger\u2019s notes showed that the motor strength and sensory examination were within normal limits, that the claimant had a full range of motion of the cervical spine, and that the complaints of neck stiffness and discomfort were out of proportion with the objective findings. Dr. Weinger found no evidence at all to suggest a cervical disc protrusion or significant ligament instability. Specifically, the doctor stated in his report to Dr; Cassidy:\n\u201cIt\u2019s my feeling that this patient\u2019s complaints of neck stiffness and discomfort are somewhat out of proportion to objective findings. The accident occurred 3-24-81 and she\u2019s had sufficient time and conservative management for a simple sprain to heal and there is simply no evidence at all to suggest a cervical disc protrusion or significant ligament instability, etc. I feel this patient could go back to work on a regular duty status. I don\u2019t think further diagnostic testing is warranted.\u201d\nThe petitioner, also of her own volition, went to the Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and was examined by Dr. Sur-eka. Dr. Sureka found that \u201cmovement of both shoulder joints was normal. Muscle strength was normal in both upper extremities. There was no sensory deficit to touch, pain, position and vibration sense in both upper extremities except a slight diminished sensation in the right thumb. Position and vibration sense were normal in both upper extremities. Deep tendon reflexes were also normal in both upper extremities.\u201d Dr. Sureka recommended a program of physical therapy consisting of \u201chot packs for the back of the neck, upper and lower back, light sedative massage, Williams flexion exercises for the low back and mobilizing exercises for cervical spine, intermittent cervical traction will be carried out.\u201d The petitioner did not return to Dr. Sureka but instead went to Dr. Lawrence Holden on referral by her attorney. Dr. Whittaker examined the petitioner at the request of the respondent and found that she could return to work August 15 or the start of school. He found \u201cexamination of both arms reveals a full range of motion including full abduction and internal and external rotation. There is no atrophy. There seems to be no sensation disturbance. She has a normal grip. Examination of her back reveals a normal thoracic spine in a normal position without spasm. The lumbar back examination is normal. She can flex her back to a normal degree and return it promptly to an upright position. Her range of motion otherwise is normal and there is no muscle spasm or tenderness present.\u201d He also stated that the X-ray examination and lateral views of the cervical spine were essentially normal.\nAs stated, this court should not disturb the Commission\u2019s decision unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. We should not put ourselves in a position of determining the credibility of the witnesses or the weight to be given to that evidence. The testimony of Drs. Weinger and Whittaker is more than sufficient to justify the finding and order of the Industrial Commission.\nWith respect to the motion to dismiss, under section 19(f)(1) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 48, par. 138.19(f)(1)), the proceeding for review is to be commenced within 20 days of receipt of notice of the decision of the Commission. The summons shall be issued by the clerk upon written request. The petitioner filed the proceeding for review on June 29, 1984, at 4:24 p.m. As stated in the affidavit of the employee\u2019s counsel, it indicates that the secretary for the law firm went to the clerk\u2019s office and persuaded a clerk to white out the file mark so that she could return the documents to the law office to correct the name of the appropriate attorney for the respondent. This the clerk should not have done. Respondent, however, does not file any affidavits from the clerks as to what transpired, and even though the affidavit of attorney for petitioner does not indicate when the request for summons was refiled, there is in the record a file mark showing \u201cJune 29, 4:24 p.m. \u201984\u201d with a record number of 84 \u2014 MR\u20142876. In the record, this appears on the affidavit of petitioner\u2019s attorney that a check was mailed to the Illinois Industrial Commission. In the absence of any affidavits or other records before this court to determine when the petition for review was filed, this document indicates a case number and a file mark within the 20-day period. As the majority points out, the respondent\u2019s motion to dismiss based upon the failure to timely file a petition for review should be denied.", "type": "concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part", "author": "JUSTICE McCULLOUGH," } ], "attorneys": [ "John Lesaganich, of Goldfine & Bowles, of Peoria, for appellant.", "Henry D. Noetzel, of Henry D. Noetzel & Associates, Ltd., of Peoria, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "FRANCES M. EDGCOMB, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Board of Education, District No. 150, Appellee and Cross-Appellant).\nThird District (Industrial Commission Division)\nNo. 3\u201488\u20140044WC\nOpinion filed April 7, 1989.\nJohn Lesaganich, of Goldfine & Bowles, of Peoria, for appellant.\nHenry D. Noetzel, of Henry D. Noetzel & Associates, Ltd., of Peoria, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0398-01", "first_page_order": 420, "last_page_order": 431 }