{
  "id": 2665341,
  "name": "THOMAS WHITMER, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Consolidated Freightways Corp., Appellee)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Whitmer v. Industrial Commission",
  "decision_date": "1989-08-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 1\u201488\u20141940WC",
  "first_page": "409",
  "last_page": "412",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "187 Ill. App. 3d 409"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "1983 Ill. Laws 3076",
      "category": "laws:leg_session",
      "reporter": "Ill. Laws",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "507 N.E.2d 878",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 Ill. App. 3d 859",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3647863
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/154/0859-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "507 N.E.2d 533",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 Ill. App. 3d 943",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3646419
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/154/0943-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "486 N.E.2d 280",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "284"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 Ill. App. 3d 680",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        8499508
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "685-86"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/138/0680-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "457 N.E.2d 381",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 Ill. 2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3164164
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/99/0001-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 385,
    "char_count": 5657,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.789,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3573564005127123e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7938819985257828
    },
    "sha256": "c8e2a6425002aff0f6360bf4222064ffae85d48b971f7ed177637737f078d475",
    "simhash": "1:97e9569728d79f5b",
    "word_count": 892
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:20:22.173562+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THOMAS WHITMER, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Consolidated Freightways Corp., Appellee)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE McCULLOUGH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nClaimant appeals from an order of the trial court which quashed summons and dismissed his Industrial Commission (Commission) review proceeding for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Claimant contends the court erred in that determination. We disagree and affirm.\nThe facts are undisputed. Following the issuance of the Commission\u2019s decision, claimant filed for review in the circuit court. Presented to the circuit clerk were the following documents:\n(1) A summons to the Industrial Commission;\n(2) A summons to respondent\u2019s attorneys;\n(3) A certificate of mailing; and\n(4) A receipt for payment of the record to the Commission.\nClaimant did not, however, file a separate document requesting issuance of summons by the clerk. Relying upon Daugherty v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1983), 99 Ill. 2d 1, 457 N.E.2d 381, Wolfe v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1985), 138 Ill. App. 3d 680, 486 N.E.2d 280, Luttrell v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1987), 154 Ill. App. 3d 943, 507 N.E.2d 533, and Chadwick v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1987), 154 Ill. App. 3d 859, 507 N.E.2d 878, the trial court dismissed the case, concluding the failure to file a written request for summons did not constitute strict compliance with section 19(f)(1) of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 48, par. 138.19(f)(1)).\nIn Daugherty claimant, filed a praecipe for writ of certiorari and scire facias which did not contain the name of a party in interest. As a result, that party, the second injury fund, was not served with summons until well after the proceedings for review had commenced in the circuit court. The supreme court held that jurisdiction could only be acquired by the timely filing of a written praecipe which met the statutory requirement that the praecipe contain the names of all parties in interest. The appeal was dismissed for failure to file a praecipe conforming to those requirements. The supreme court considered the fact the omitted party was eventually served irrelevant.\nIn Wolfe, claimant failed to file a written request for summons. Because respondent failed to perfect a cross-appeal, this court concluded law of the case made review of respondent\u2019s jurisdictional argument inappropriate. Nevertheless we observed: \u201cStrict compliance with section 19(f)(1) of the Act would appear to require that the request be in writing, and Daugherty requires strict compliance.\u201d Wolfe, 138 Ill. App. 3d at 685-86, 486 N.E.2d at 284.\nClaimant argues, however, there has been a tendency by courts to simplify procedure, honor substance over form, and prevent technicalities from depriving a party of the right to be heard, citing Luttrell and Chadwick. In Luttrell claimant filed for review on outdated forms after section 19(f)(1) had been amended by the legislature to require the use of summons instead of praecipes and writs. (Pub. Act 83\u2014 360, eff. Sept. 14, 1983 (1983 Ill. Laws 3076).) This court determined the mere use of incorrect forms did not deprive the circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction since there was no significant distinction between a written request for summons and a praecipe. We have also examined the cursory legislative history attendant to Public Act 83\u2014 360. It clearly reveals the amendment was purely technical to correct terminology and make other \u201clinguistic\u201d changes. 83d Ill. Gen. Assem., House Proceedings, April 19, 1983, at 32 (statements of Representative Terzich).\nIn Chadwick the praecipe for writ named respondent as a party in interest but did not include its address. The praecipe did, however, set forth the address of the respondent\u2019s attorney of record and respondent\u2019s name and address were listed on the certificate of mailing. While we noted this was error, it was also clear claimant provided sufficient information in the praecipe and certificate of mailing to permit the clerk to properly notify respondent and its attorney of the pending appeal.\nNeither Luttrell nor Chadwick is analogous to the situation here. In both Luttrell and Chadwick written requests, although imperfectly drawn, were actually filed. In the instant case, no written request was filed. The supreme court in Daugherty clearly stated that a request for summons must be in writing. We deem the failure to file any written request to be substantive, since to hold otherwise would completely emasculate a clear requirement of section 19(f)(1). We conclude the trial court properly determined it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because of claimant\u2019s failure to strictly comply with the statute.\nFinally, although we need not reach any of the other issues presented because of the disposition we make, we acknowledge and approve respondent\u2019s confession of error in the Industrial Commission decision to the extent respondent concedes it is obligated to reimburse claimant in the amount of $145 for the medical expense of a CAT scan performed upon claimant at the direction of respondent\u2019s medical personnel. See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 48, par. 138.12.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nBARRY, P.J., and McNAMARA, WOODWARD, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE McCULLOUGH"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Anesi, Ozmon, Lewin & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago (Richard A. Kimnach, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Garofalo, Hanson, Schreiber & Vandlik, Chartered, of Chicago (Scott T. Schreiber and Philip G. Brinckerhoff, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THOMAS WHITMER, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Consolidated Freightways Corp., Appellee).\nFirst District (Industrial Commission Division)\nNo. 1\u201488\u20141940WC\nOpinion filed August 11, 1989.\nRehearing denied January 31, 1990.\nAnesi, Ozmon, Lewin & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago (Richard A. Kimnach, of counsel), for appellant.\nGarofalo, Hanson, Schreiber & Vandlik, Chartered, of Chicago (Scott T. Schreiber and Philip G. Brinckerhoff, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0409-01",
  "first_page_order": 435,
  "last_page_order": 438
}