{ "id": 3777717, "name": "DIANE SCHULZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT OF COOK COUNTY, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Schulz v. Forest Preserve District", "decision_date": "2003-11-19", "docket_number": "No. 1-02-2860WC", "first_page": "658", "last_page": "662", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "344 Ill. App. 3d 658" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "507 N.E.2d 533", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "542" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 Ill. App. 3d 943", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3646419 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "954" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/154/0943-01" ] }, { "cite": "571 N.E.2d 1001", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1004", "parenthetical": "under section 19(f)(1), claimant's request for summons and for review of Commission's decision was in substantial compliance with requirements even though it did not name employer's attorney of record, absent showing of prejudice" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "213 Ill. App. 3d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2605437 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "5", "parenthetical": "under section 19(f)(1), claimant's request for summons and for review of Commission's decision was in substantial compliance with requirements even though it did not name employer's attorney of record, absent showing of prejudice" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/213/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "597 N.E.2d 797", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "799" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 Ill. App. 3d 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 8499103 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "566" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/232/0562-01" ] }, { "cite": "606 N.E.2d 236", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "239-40", "parenthetical": "single request for summons, instead of two requests, substantially complied with the requirements of section 19(f)(1), where no showing of prejudice" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "238 Ill. App. 3d 202", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5156552 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "207", "parenthetical": "single request for summons, instead of two requests, substantially complied with the requirements of section 19(f)(1), where no showing of prejudice" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/238/0202-01" ] }, { "cite": "447 N.E.2d 802", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "804" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "95 Ill. 2d 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3112651 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "278" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/95/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "721 N.E.2d 563", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "570", "parenthetical": "under section 19(f)(1), claimant satisfied the material provisions of the statute where although proof of payment was provided after filing of request for summons both occurred within the period prescribed by statute" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "188 Ill. 2d 314", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 535913 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "327", "parenthetical": "under section 19(f)(1), claimant satisfied the material provisions of the statute where although proof of payment was provided after filing of request for summons both occurred within the period prescribed by statute" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/188/0314-01" ] }, { "cite": "711 N.E.2d 1219", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1221" }, { "page": "1223" }, { "page": "1223" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 Ill. App. 3d 80", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1208016 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "84" }, { "page": "84" }, { "page": "81" }, { "page": "81" }, { "page": "84" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/305/0080-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 456, "char_count": 11425, "ocr_confidence": 0.776, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.11158527002925653 }, "sha256": "10bf16a2a8263bbd68b11d5e658fc0df848ce041790a18f3503a1ee5fe859b1e", "simhash": "1:993a4495edd33cfa", "word_count": 1823 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:11:26.904766+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "DIANE SCHULZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT OF COOK COUNTY, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nClaimant, Diane Schulz, filed an application for adjustment of claim under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS 305/1 through 30 (West 2000)), seeking benefits for injuries she suffered to her back which she alleged arose out of and in the course of her employment with employer, Forest Preserve District of Cook County, on December 30, 1989. Following a hearing, the arbitrator filed a memorandum of decision on June 29, 2001. The arbitrator found claimant sustained injuries causing \u201ccomplete disability\u201d and awarded claimant benefits.\nOn July 26, 2001, employer filed a petition for review of the arbitrator\u2019s decision filed June 29, 2001. On July 27, 2001, the arbitrator filed a corrected memorandum of decision. Employer did not file a petition for review of the arbitrator\u2019s corrected decision filed July 27, 2001. On April 9, 2002, the Industrial Commission (Commission) entered an order granting claimant\u2019s motion to dismiss finding the Commission lacked jurisdiction due to employer\u2019s failure to file an additional petition for review after the arbitrator issued a corrected decision. Employer sought judicial review of the Commission\u2019s decision in the circuit court of Cook County, which confirmed the Commission\u2019s decision.\nEmployer appeals, arguing that the Commission erred by granting claimant\u2019s motion to dismiss. We affirm the order of the circuit court of Cook County confirming the Commission\u2019s decision.\nClaimant filed an application for adjustment of claim under the Act seeking benefits for injuries she suffered to her back which she alleged arose out of and in the course of her employment with employer on December 30, 1989. Following a hearing, the arbitrator filed a memorandum of decision on June 29, 2001. The arbitrator found claimant sustained injuries causing \u201ccomplete disability\u201d and awarded claimant benefits. On July 17, 2001, claimant filed a petition to recall stating claimant\u2019s name was misspelled in the caption of the case and requesting the error be corrected. In a notice of recall, dated July 27, 2001, and directed to counsel for claimant and counsel for employer, the Commission stated \u201ccopies of the above mentioned decision are hereby recalled for the purpose of correcting a clerical error which now exists in said [djecision.\u201d The Commission directed that copies of the decision be returned and stated \u201cin due course a corrected [d]ecision will be issued.\u201d The arbitrator filed a corrected memorandum of decision on July 27, 2001, dated and entered on July 26, 2001. Also on July 26, 2001, employer filed a petition for review of the arbitrator\u2019s decision filed June 29, 2001. Employer did not file a petition for review of the arbitrator\u2019s corrected decision filed July 27, 2001.\nOn October 11, 2001, claimant filed a motion to dismiss employer\u2019s petition for review of the arbitrator\u2019s decision filed June 29, 2001. Claimant stated that employer \u201chas taken no [rjeview of the [c]or-rected [djecision.\u201d The Commission entered an order, dated April 9, 2002, granting claimant\u2019s motion to dismiss. The Commission referenced this court\u2019s decision in Campbell-Peterson v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 305 Ill. App. 3d 80, 84, 711 N.E.2d 1219, 1221 (1999), finding the Commission lacked jurisdiction over a claimant\u2019s case due to his failure to file a petition for review after the arbitrator issued a corrected decision.\n\u2022 Employer sought judicial review of the Commission\u2019s decision in the circuit court of Cook County, which confirmed the Commission\u2019s decision. This appeal followed.\nEmployer argues that the Commission erred by granting claimant\u2019s motion to dismiss. We disagree.\nSection 19(f) of the Act provides:\n\u201c[T]he 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 review herein specified shall begin to run from the date of the receipt of the corrected award or decision.\u201d 820 ILCS 305/19 (West 2000).\nSection 19(b) of the Act provides that \u201c[ujnless a petition for review is filed by either party within 30 days after the receipt by such party of the copy of the decision and notification of time when filed[,] *** the decision shall become the decision of the Commission and in the absence of fraud shall be conclusive.\u201d 820 ILCS 305/19 (West 2000).\nIn the present case, the arbitrator issued a corrected decision on July 27, 2001. Employer did not file a petition for review of the arbitrator\u2019s corrected decision filed July 27, 2001. The corrected decision became the decision of the Commission and is \u201cconclusive.\u201d\nEmployer argues it \u201csubstantially complied\u201d by filing a petition for review of the arbitrator\u2019s decision filed June 29, 2001, and substantial compliance is \u201csufficient.\u201d Employer cites authority that might allow this court to find substantial compliance sufficient under section 19(f)(1) of the Act, but not under section 19(f) of the Act. See Jones v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 188 Ill. 2d 314, 327, 721 N.E.2d 563, 570 (1999) (under section 19(f)(1), claimant satisfied the material provisions of the statute where although proof of payment was provided after filing of request for summons both occurred within the period prescribed by statute); Burns v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 95 Ill. 2d 272, 278, 447 N.E.2d 802, 804 (1983) (Commission awarded benefits for 8sh weeks and not 85 weeks; typographical error; neither party filed for review of decision. The supreme court stated, \u201c[t]his case represents a waste of judicial resources. It seems incredible that a typographical error could cause such problems. This whole situation could have been avoided if both parties had been more careful in their reading of the decision in its typed form\u201d); Chicago Transit Authority v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 238 Ill. App. 3d 202, 207, 606 N.E.2d 236, 239-40 (1992) (single request for summons, instead of two requests, substantially complied with the requirements of section 19(f)(1), where no showing of prejudice); Hallenbeck v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 232 Ill. App. 3d 562, 566, 597 N.E.2d 797, 799 (1992) (Commission, on its own motion, corrected error; circuit court ruled that due to fact there was no letter of recall in the record, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review corrected decision and the original decision remained in effect; critically, claimant properly and timely sought review of the corrected decision; any error in review process was not claimant\u2019s; circuit court did have subject matter jurisdiction); Chambers v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 213 Ill. App. 3d 1, 5, 571 N.E.2d 1001, 1004 (1991) (under section 19(f)(1), claimant\u2019s request for summons and for review of Commission\u2019s decision was in substantial compliance with requirements even though it did not name employer\u2019s attorney of record, absent showing of prejudice).\nHowever, substantial compliance in cases applying section 19(f)(1) does not apply in the instant case. This court has determined that section 19(f) requires strict compliance. See Campbell-Peterson, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 84, 711 N.E.2d at 1223. In Campbell-Peterson, the arbitrator filed a memorandum of decision on September 27, 1996. On October 24,1996, the employer filed a motion to correct the arbitrator\u2019s decision based on a \u201cclerical/computer error\u201d that omitted certain portions of the decision it received from the arbitrator concerning entitlement to temporary total disability benefits. 305 Ill. App. 3d at 81. On October 29, 1996, the claimant filed with the Commission his petition for review of the arbitrator\u2019s decision filed September 27, 1996. Thereafter, the arbitrator granted the employer\u2019s motion to correct, and on January 15, 1997, the Commission issued a notice stating that the arbitrator\u2019s September 1996 decision was being recalled because \u201ca printer error was made when copies of the arbitration decision were printed for mailing.\u201d 305 Ill. App. 3d at 81. On January 15, 1997, the arbitrator issued a corrected decision. The claimant did not file a petition for review with the Commission from this corrected decision.\nThe Commission determined it lacked jurisdiction over the claimant\u2019s case due to his failure to perfect review following the issuance of the arbitrator\u2019s corrected decision, and it dismissed his claim. The trial court granted the employer\u2019s motion to dismiss based on a lack of its jurisdiction over the matter. The claimant appealed arguing the corrections made to the arbitrator\u2019s original decision were technical, were not made for the purpose of correcting an error or inconsistency, did not materially affect the rights of the parties, and were made only for the purpose of providing the employer with a \u201cclean copy\u201d of the initial decision. Under these circumstances, the claimant suggested strict compliance with the section 19(f) requirement of filing a petition for review from a corrected decision was unnecessary and that no purpose would be frustrated in allowing his initial petition for review to stand. This court disagreed stating: \u201cIn adhering to strict compliance with section 19(f), we conclude that the Commission correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over claimant\u2019s case due to his failure to perfect review following the issuance of the arbitrator\u2019s corrected decision, and its dismissal of claimant\u2019s claim was proper.\u201d Campbell-Peterson, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 84, 711 N.E.2d at 1223.\nIn Luttrell v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 154 Ill. App. 3d 943, 954, 507 N.E.2d 533, 542 (1987), this court reasoned, \u201c[t]he crucial point is that the goal and purpose of the statute was satisfied, i.e., notice to the Industrial Commission and the parties.\u201d In the present case, the goal and purpose of section 19(f), i.e., notice to the Commission and the parties, was not satisfied. The fact that employer filed a petition for review of the arbitrator\u2019s decision filed June 29, 2001, \u201cwhich spelled [claimant\u2019s] name correctly,\u201d is irrelevant. Section 19(f) of the Act provides that the arbitrator may correct any clerical error within 15 days after the date of receipt of any award by the arbitrator, and where such correction is made, the time for review shall begin to run from the date of the receipt of the corrected award. Unless a petition for review is filed by either party within 30 days after the receipt of the \u201ccorrected award,\u201d the decision shall become the decision of the Commission and in the absence of fraud shall be conclusive. Employer did not comply with the Act. Employer did not file a petition for review within 30 days of the arbitrator\u2019s corrected memorandum of decision filed July 27, 2001.\nWe affirm the order of the circuit court of Cook County confirming the Commission\u2019s decision.\nAffirmed.\nHOFFMAN, CALLUM, HOLDRIDGE, and GOLDENHERSH, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH" } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert S. Fritzshall & Associates, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Baum, Ruffolo & Marzal, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DIANE SCHULZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT OF COOK COUNTY, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (Industrial Commission Division)\nNo. 1-02-2860WC\nOpinion filed November 19, 2003.\nRobert S. Fritzshall & Associates, of Chicago, for appellant.\nBaum, Ruffolo & Marzal, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0658-01", "first_page_order": 676, "last_page_order": 680 }