{
  "id": 4259941,
  "name": "FRANK RIOS, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (United Parcel Service et al., Appellees)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rios v. Industrial Commission",
  "decision_date": "2005-09-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 1\u201404\u20143352WC",
  "first_page": "694",
  "last_page": "697",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "361 Ill. App. 3d 694"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "756 N.E.2d 822",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "827"
        },
        {
          "page": "827"
        },
        {
          "page": "827"
        },
        {
          "page": "827"
        },
        {
          "page": "827"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 Ill. 2d 225",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        259070
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "232"
        },
        {
          "page": "232"
        },
        {
          "page": "232"
        },
        {
          "page": "232"
        },
        {
          "page": "232"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/197/0225-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 381,
    "char_count": 5967,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.802,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1425565737616363
    },
    "sha256": "4691db77a06f418511172e16666b116eb2e8f012f8b899fada36c8e0cbc11fe8",
    "simhash": "1:a383046f4c74f620",
    "word_count": 941
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:20.596028+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FRANK RIOS, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (United Parcel Service et al., Appellees)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn November 18, 1998, claimant, Frank Rios, injured his back while working for United Parcel Service (employer) and sought compensation under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 2000)). The Illinois Industrial Commission (Commission) awarded claimant wage differential benefits in the amount of $363.33 per week pursuant to section 8(d)(1) of the Act. On November 6, 2003, claimant filed a motion before the Commission, seeking an order directing employer \u201cand/or Liberty Mutual Insurance Company to deposit a sum of money, as calculated under section 24 [of the Act], to ensure compliance with the decision of the *** Commission thereafter consistent with the Act.\u201d Although claimant acknowledged that he had been compensated, \u201calbeit on an erratic basis,\u201d he expressed \u201cfear[ ]\u201d that \u201c[biased on the current state of the economy, the past history in recent times of bankruptcies and failures of insurance companies,\u201d employer, \u201cand/or Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,\u201d may not continue to pay claimant his compensation.\nOn April 21, 2004, the Commission denied claimant\u2019s motion. The Commission found that claimant failed to provide facts which would lead to the belief that claimant\u2019s benefits are in danger of being discontinued. The Commission stated:\n\u201c[Employer] affirmed their financial soundness, and it was indicated that Liberty Mutual Insurance [Company] was a consistent contributor to the Illinois Insurance Guarantee Fund. Thus, if it were to become insolvent, [claimant] would be protected. [Claimant] did not dispute this assertion.\u201d\nAs there was no allegation \u201cof financial difficulty,\u201d the Commission found there was no basis \u201cto warrant a remedy under [s]ection 24.\u201d\nOn October 19, 2004, the Cook County circuit court affirmed the Commission\u2019s order. The court found that (1) \u201cthe mandatory language of [s]ection 24 is directed to the [e]mployer, not the Commission,\u201d and (2) \u201c[claimant] failed to make a prima facie case in respect to the financial condition of the employer.\u201d\nOn appeal to this court, claimant contends that the Commission improperly denied his motion. Specifically, claimant argues that section 24 of the Act mandates that the Commission enter an order pursuant to the section, upon request of a claimant, and that the Commission has no discretion to deny a claimant\u2019s motion. The Commission, and the circuit court, rejected claimant\u2019s argument.\nThe issue currently before us involves a matter of statutory construction. Accordingly, our review is de novo, and we are guided by familiar principles. Sylvester v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 197 Ill. 2d 225, 232, 756 N.E.2d 822, 827 (2001). Our primary goal is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature. Sylvester, 197 Ill. 2d at 232, 756 N.E.2d at 827. We determine this intent by reading the statute as a whole and considering all relevant parts. Sylvester, 197 Ill. 2d at 232, 756 N.E.2d at 827. \u201cWe must construe the statute so that each word, clause, and sentence, if possible, is given a reasonable meaning and not rendered superfluous [citation], avoiding an interpretation which would render any portion of the statute meaningless or void.\u201d Sylvester, 197 Ill. 2d at 232, 756 N.E.2d at 827. We also presume that the General Assembly did not intend absurdity, inconvenience, or injustice. Sylvester, 197 Ill. 2d at 232, 756 N.E.2d at 827.\nSection 24 provides:\n\u201cAny employer against whom liability may exist for compensation under this Act shall upon the order and direction of the Commission:\n(a) Deposit the commuted value of the total unpaid compensation for which such liability exists, computed at 3% per annum in the same manner as provided in Section 9, with the State Treasurer, or county treasurer in the county where the accident happened, or with any savings and loan association or State or national bank or trust company doing business in this State. Any such depositary to which such compensation may be paid, shall pay the same out in installments as in this Act provided, unless such sum is ordered paid in, and is commuted to a lump sum payment in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or\n(b) Purchase an annuity, in an amount of compensation due or computed, under this Act within the limitation provided by law in any insurance company granting annuities and licensed or permitted to do business in this State which may be designated by the employer or the Commission.\u201d 820 ILCS 305/24 (West 2002).\nClaimant contends that the word \u201cshall\u201d mandates that the Commission enter an order pursuant to the section, upon the request of a claimant, and that the Commission has no discretion to deny a claimant\u2019s motion. Claimant misreads the statute. First, section 24 does not reference an employee. The term \u201cshall\u201d refers to \u201cemployer.\u201d Section 24 does not mandate that the Commission \u201cshall\u201d enter an order but mandates that an employer \u201cshall\u201d comply \u201cupon the order and direction of the Commission.\u201d Additionally, because it was within the Commission\u2019s discretion to enter an order pursuant to section 24 of the Act, the Commission properly considered the \u201cfinancial soundness\u201d of employer and its workers\u2019 compensation insurance provider in determining whether to dismiss claimant\u2019s motion. The Commission did not abuse its discretion.\nWe affirm the circuit court\u2019s order confirming the Commission\u2019s decision.\nAffirmed.\nHOFFMAN, CALLUM, HOLDRIDGE, and GOLDENHERSH, JJ., concur.\nNow known as the Illinois Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission. See Pub. Act 93\u2014721, eff. January 1, 2005.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Corti, Freeman & Aleksy, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Meachum, Spahr & Postel, of Chicago, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FRANK RIOS, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (United Parcel Service et al., Appellees).\nFirst District (Illinois Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission Division)\nNo. 1\u201404\u20143352WC\nOpinion filed September 30, 2005.\nRehearing denied November 10, 2005.\nCorti, Freeman & Aleksy, of Chicago, for appellant.\nMeachum, Spahr & Postel, of Chicago, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0694-01",
  "first_page_order": 712,
  "last_page_order": 715
}