{
  "id": 5817025,
  "name": "In re Application of Margaret Watson",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Watson",
  "decision_date": "1984-04-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 81-CC-2297",
  "first_page": "328",
  "last_page": "331",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 328"
    }
  ],
  "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": 273,
    "char_count": 4183,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.893,
    "sha256": "c49533ec4768180e0563c99aaef4b27d933ca2a02132074b6454384fe3a2321e",
    "simhash": "1:e50656eb0231c7ad",
    "word_count": 705
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:01.719225+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re Application of Margaret Watson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Roe, C.J.\nThe Claimant seeks an award as the statutory beneficiary of Police Officer Curtis Watson pursuant to the provisions of the \u201cLaw Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act,\u201d (hereinafter, the Act). Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 48, par. 281 et seq.\nThe Court has carefully considered the application for benefits and documents submitted in support thereof, a written statement of the decedent\u2019s supervising officer, a report by the Illinois Attorney General\u2019s Office, an evidence deposition, and a commissioner\u2019s report submitted following the filing of a joint stipulation in which both parties agreed to submit the matter to the Court on evidence depositions to be filed with the Court. It was also agreed in the stipulation that briefs were to be waived.\nThe record shows that the decedent, Curtis Watson, was involved with the arrest of a knife-wielding woman on April 4, 1980, and that in the ensuing struggle to subdue the suspect, he was cut on the finger. Immediately after the arrest he was treated at Mercy Hospital in Champaign, Illinois, and found to have high blood pressure in addition to the finger injury. On April 25, 1980, he collapsed while on duty at 11:01 p.m. and was declared dead at 12:16 a.m. on April 26,1980. The cause of death was \u201cAcute Cardiac Failure\u201d due to \u201cInterstitial Myocarditis\u201d (inflammation of the heart muscle).\nIn order to recover under the Act it must be shown that the officer was killed in the line of duty as defined by the Act. Section 2(e) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that \u201c \u2018killed in the line of duty\u2019 means losing one\u2019s life as a result of injury received in the active performance of duties as a law enforcement officer # * if the death occurs within one year from the date the injury was received and if that injury arose from violence or other accidental cause.\u201d\nThe evidence deposition of Dr. Jose Racquel shows that he thought there was a possibility that an infection caused by the knife wound brought on the heart attack; however, he stated he could not be sure this is what happened and could not be sure that the incident of April 4, 1980, was the cause. Neither could the coroner nor the pathologist, in their reports, state with any certainty what caused the inflammation of the heart and the resulting heart attack.\nWhile the death of Officer Watson was certainly unfortunate, we find that the Claimant has failed to show that Officer Watson was killed in the line of duty as required by the Act. It has not been proven that he lost his life as a result of injury received in the active performance of duties as a law enforcement officer because a causal connection has not been adequately shown between the incident of April 4, 1980, and the decedent\u2019s death on April 26,1980. Therefore, this claim must be denied.\nIt is hereby ordered that this claim be, and hereby is, denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Roe, C.J."
      },
      {
        "text": "ORDER ON DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REHEARING\nRoe, C.J.\nThis cause is before the Court on Claimant\u2019s petition for rehearing.\nIn an opinion dated April 12, 1984, this Court determined that the Claimant was not entitled to compensation pursuant to the Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 48, par. 281 et seq.) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), because she had failed to show that the decedent was killed in the line of duty as required by section 2(e) of the Act. The Claimant contends in her petition for rehearing that we overlooked certain evidence in reaching our decision to deny compensation.\nWe disagree with the Claimant\u2019s contention. All of the evidence which the Court supposedly overlooked was considered in reaching our decision to deny compensation. Since the petition for rehearing fails to state any points overlooked or misapprehended by the Court, the petition must be denied.\nIt is hereby ordered that Claimant\u2019s petition for rehearing be, and hereby is, denied.",
        "type": "rehearing",
        "author": "Roe, C.J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael B. McClellan, for Claimant.",
      "Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (Kathleen O\u2019Brien, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 81-CC-2297\nIn re Application of Margaret Watson.\nOpinion filed April 12, 1984.\nOrder on denial of petition for rehearing filed July 11,1984.\nMichael B. McClellan, for Claimant.\nNeil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (Kathleen O\u2019Brien, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0328-01",
  "first_page_order": 412,
  "last_page_order": 415
}