{
  "id": 4022693,
  "name": "RICHARD KEEFE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FREEDOM GRAPHIC SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Keefe v. Freedom Graphic Systems, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "2004-05-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 1-03-1377WC",
  "first_page": "591",
  "last_page": "593",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "348 Ill. App. 3d 591"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "652 N.E.2d 275",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "277-78"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "166 Ill. 2d 204",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        198894
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "210"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/166/0204-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "802 N.E.2d 1262",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1267"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "345 Ill. App. 3d 716",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5873122
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "724"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/345/0716-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 284,
    "char_count": 4401,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.735,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.60167783687625e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2885185584178846
    },
    "sha256": "c964b9a1d948b90b6685ea5f855dc995a83510d9a83f02f2f4881438b4f54d95",
    "simhash": "1:8c3b64a4cbca262f",
    "word_count": 718
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:23:16.717830+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "RICHARD KEEFE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FREEDOM GRAPHIC SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nClaimant, Richard Keefe, filed an application with the Illinois Industrial Commission (Commission), seeking benefits from employer, Freedom Graphic Systems, Inc., for injuries suffered June 4, 2001, pursuant to the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 2002)). On December 3, 2001, an arbitrator concluded that claimant had suffered compensable injuries on the date in question, arising out of and in the course of employment with employer. He awarded claimant $140,040.60 in outstanding medical bills and prospective medical care. On July 23, 2002, the Commission affirmed and adopted the arbitrator\u2019s decision.\nOn August 9, 2002, employer filed an action in the circuit court of Cook County, seeking administrative review of the Commission\u2019s decision. On November 6, 2002, the court dismissed the action. Employer appealed, No. 1 \u2014 03\u20140194WC, and we affirmed. Freedom Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 345 Ill. App. 3d 716, 724, 802 N.E.2d 1262, 1267 (2003).\nWe first note that the record in Freedom Graphic Systems, Inc., No. 1 \u2014 03\u20140194WC, shows employer\u2019s brief did not contain a copy of the arbitrator\u2019s decision or the Commission\u2019s decision. On October 27, 2003, we issued an order requiring employer to file, on or before November 12, 2003, an amended appendix to its brief in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 342(a). 155 Ill. 2d R. 342(a). The order also stated that in the event employer failed to file an amended appendix by November 12, it would be required to file, on or before November 13, 2003, a statement of cause, if any, why its brief should not be stricken for failure to comply with supreme court rules. On November 10, 2003, employer filed an amended brief, which failed to remedy the problems addressed by this court\u2019s October 27 order. Claimant later amended his brief to include a copy of the decisions of the arbitrator and the Commission.\nOn November 18, 2002, claimant applied for relief under section 19(g) of the Act and requested that the trial court enter judgment against employer and award costs and attorney fees to claimant. On April 10, 2003, the court entered a section 19(g) judgment on the pleadings for claimant and against defendant in the amount of $171,680.91. Employer appeals.\nOn appeal, employer\u2019s brief again fails to comply with the requirements of Supreme Court Rules 341 and 342(a) (188 Ill. 2d R. 341; 155 Ill. 2d R. 342(a)) in that it contains neither a copy of the arbitrator\u2019s decision nor a copy of the Commission\u2019s decision in the appendix. On February 11, 2004, we ordered employer to file, on or before February 23, 2004, a statement with the clerk of the court, showing cause, if any, why employer\u2019s brief should not be stricken for failure to comply with supreme court rules. Employer has entered no pleading showing any reason why it should not, would not, and could not comply with our order of February 11, 2004.\nOn March 22, 2004, claimant filed a motion to dismiss for employer\u2019s failure to comply with this court\u2019s rule to show cause. We took claimant\u2019s motion with the case.\nAt oral argument, employer suggested that it was not required to respond to the rule to show cause because the instant case involves a section 19(g) petition, which does not involve the arbitrator\u2019s decision or the Commission\u2019s decision. Employer failed to explain why its brief did not comply with Supreme Court Rules 341 and 342.\nEmployer attempts to require justification for our supreme court rules before they are given effect. However, supreme court rules have the force of law. They are not suggestions, nor are they aspirational. Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill. 2d 204, 210, 652 N.E.2d 275, 277-78 (1995). Employer has also chosen not to take this court\u2019s orders seriously, as evidenced by its failure to respond to those orders.\nAccordingly, we grant claimant\u2019s motion to dismiss employer\u2019s appeal for failure to comply with this court\u2019s February 11, 2004, rule-to-show-cause order.\nAppeal dismissed.\nGREIMAN, CALLUM, HOLDRIDGE, and GOLDENHERSH, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert L. Sklodowski, of Franklin Park, for appellants.",
      "Keefe & Associates, of Chicago, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RICHARD KEEFE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FREEDOM GRAPHIC SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nFirst District (Industrial Commission Division)\nNo. 1\u201403\u20141377WC\nOpinion filed May 12, 2004.\nRobert L. Sklodowski, of Franklin Park, for appellants.\nKeefe & Associates, of Chicago, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0591-01",
  "first_page_order": 609,
  "last_page_order": 611
}