{
  "id": 2776727,
  "name": "William S. Austin, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Austin v. State",
  "decision_date": "1959-05-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 4699",
  "first_page": "83",
  "last_page": "85",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "23 Ill. Ct. Cl. 83"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 310,
    "char_count": 4722,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.683,
    "sha256": "cc52e42b0bf50cc59bf14465e100b7d0de3f3f4fa7f6acd5542ed7ec0f9b5b25",
    "simhash": "1:93f2fcbfe0be8eac",
    "word_count": 805
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:31:00.937053+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William S. Austin, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tolson, C. J.\nOn November 28, 1955, claimant filed his complaint seeking an award for injuries, which he sustained while an inmate at the Illinois State Penitentiary, Menard, Illinois.\nFrom the evidence, it appears that on April 3, 1952 claimant was playing softball during an authorized recreation period. In an attempt to slide into second base he collided with the second baseman, and suffered a fracture through the articular surface head of the left radius. The gist of the complaint is to the effect that the attending doctor made a \u201cslip-shod\u201d diagnosis, and, instead of placing the arm in a cast, diagnosed the injury as a sprain, and ordered claimant to carry it in a sling. As a result of improper treatment, claimant alleges that he now has a pronounced limitation of motion.\nRespondent, for no apparent reason, failed to file a motion to strike the complaint on the grounds that it was barred on its face by the statute of limitations. Claimant alleges that the facts of this case show that he was suffering from \u201cother disabilities\u201d, so that he should escape the bar of the statute.\nAt the outset, we must consider Section 22 of the Court of Claims Act:\n\u201cEvery claim, other than a claim arising out of a contract or a claim arising under subsection C of Section 8 of this Act, cognizable by the Court and not otherwise sooner barred by law shall be forever barred from prosecution therein unless it is filed with the Clerk of the Court within two years after it first accrues, saving to infants, idiots, lunatics, insane persons and persons under other disability at the time the claim accmes two years from the time the disability ceases.\u201d\nThe precise point was considered by the Court in the case of Atkinson vs. State of Illinois, 21 C.C.R. 429:\n\u201cOn February 19, 1953, claimant, Henry Atkinson, filed his complaint in this Court seeking to recover an award for injuries sustained by him on September 30, 1949, allegedly due to the negligence of respondent, while claimant was an inmate of the Illinois State Penitentiary, Stateville Branch.\nSection 22 of the present Court of Claims Act, Ill. Rev. Stats., 1949, Chap. 37, Sec. 439.22, provides that the filing of a claim, unless sooner barred, within two years of its accrual is jurisdictional \u2018saving to infants, idiots, lunatics, insane persons, and persons under other disability at the time the claim accrues two years from the time the disability ceases\u2019. Weber vs. State of Illinois, 19 C.C.R. 33, and Auto Electric Co. vs. State of Illinois, 20 C.C.R. 198.\nAlthough respondent has filed no motion pointing out that the complaint has been filed too late, since jurisdiction of this Court is involved, and the question of the jurisdiction of this Court may be raised at any time, even by the Court on its own motion, we, therefore, must determine whether we can hear this case. Flynn vs. State of Illinois, 19 C.C.R. 184.\nThe complaint, on its face, shows that claimant is not now, and has not, since his claim accrued, been under any disability, which would toll the running of time against him.\nIt has always been the rule in this Court that confinement in the penitentiary is not such a disability as would toll the running of the statute. McElyea vs. State of Illinois, 7 C.C.R. 69, and Robertson vs. State of Illinois, 19 C.C.R. 146. The latter case contains a complete discussion of the problem involved herein, and in that case the claim was dismissed, because the former convict therein involved waited too long to file his case.\nIn view of the foregoing, claimant has filed his complaint too late, and this Court is without jurisdiction to hear it.\nThe case is dismissed.\u201d\nIll an effort to avoid the rule in the Atkinson case, claimant alleges that \u201cother disabilities\u201d prevented him from filing his claim on time, and states that in the summer of 1954 a Veterans\u2019 Service Officer was asked to supply an attorney, but that he suggested claimant wait until his discharge to institute such action.\nHe further alleges that his sister made an effort to locate an attorney without success, and, finally, that he feared any claim filed by him would affect his chance of parole or discharge.\nNotwithstanding the above allegations, claimant, while a prisoner, filed his complaint \u201cpro se\u201d on November 28, 1955, and, if he elected to file his complaint while a prisoner, it should have been filed on time.\nFor the reason that the Court is without jurisdiction to hear the case, an award is, therefore, denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tolson, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lansden and Lansden, Attorneys for Claimant.",
      "Latham Castle, Attorney General; C. Arthur Nebel, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 4699\nWilliam S. Austin, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed May 12, 1959.\nLansden and Lansden, Attorneys for Claimant.\nLatham Castle, Attorney General; C. Arthur Nebel, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0083-01",
  "first_page_order": 115,
  "last_page_order": 117
}