{
  "id": 5808892,
  "name": "Coston Paschal and Buesing Brothers Trucking, Inc., Claimants, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Coston Paschal & Buesing Bros. Trucking, Inc. v. State",
  "decision_date": "1990-02-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 86-CC-3357",
  "first_page": "229",
  "last_page": "231",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "43 Ill. Ct. Cl. 229"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "42 Ill. Ct. Cl. 41",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
      "case_ids": [
        3176105
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-ct-cl/42/0041-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 Ill. Ct. Cl. 80",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
      "case_ids": [
        5329475
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-ct-cl/28/0080-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 239,
    "char_count": 3214,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.904,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8258001464992802e-07,
      "percentile": 0.719853937430329
    },
    "sha256": "8da5d37cc1e8baa0f7f73413f7c712944c0acedd74f6af1afffb34d5dd631040",
    "simhash": "1:166ee62d682ee7ba",
    "word_count": 528
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:42.826417+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Coston Paschal and Buesing Brothers Trucking, Inc., Claimants, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSommer, J.\nThis cause coming to be heard on the motion of the Respondent to dismiss, and the Court being fully advised in the premises,\nFinds that the Claimant who was employed on a highway construction project was struck by a truck owned by Buesing Brothers Trucking, Inc. The Claimant\u2019s employer, Civil Constructors Inc. paid the Claimant the sum of $272,872.59 in workers\u2019 compensation. The Claimant has sued the trucking company in the circuit court and the State in the Court of Claims. The State bases its motion to dismiss on the principal that the workers\u2019 compensation received by the injured employee must be \u201cset-off\u201d from any award taken against the State, and since the Claimant has received more than $100,000.00, the claim should be dismissed.\nThough this Claim may ultimately present a variety of issues to the Court, the issue before us now is whether workers\u2019 compensation awards are to be \u201cset-off.\u201d\nThe most recent reported claim deciding the same issue, Frazier v. State (1972), 28 Ill. Ct. Cl. 80, which set-off a workers\u2019 compensation award, was decided under a somewhat different statute. At the time, this Court was directed to \u201cset-off\u201d recoveries from \u201cany other source.\u201d In 1973, the words \u201cany other source\u201d were dropped and the statute now reads:\n\u201cThere shall be but one satisfaction of any claim or cause of action and any recovery awarded by the Court shall be subject to the right of set-off. Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.24 \u2014 6.\u201d\nThe requirement that this Court \u201cset-off\u201d recoveries from \u201cany other source\u201d obviously had the effect of staying the operation of the collateral source rule in the Court of Claims. In the circuit courts, the collateral source rule would be invoked to deny a set-off of workers\u2019 compensation payments, as they arise from an independent statutory source, the employer.\nIn Sallee v. State (1990), 42 Ill. Ct. Cl. 41, this Court has held that payments made by the Claimant\u2019s own health insurance are not to be \u201cset-off,\u201d but rather to be treated as in the circuit courts under the collateral source rule. Adopting the same logic as in Sallee, supra, this Court holds that workers\u2019 compensation payments are not to be \u201cset-off,\u201d unless the employer has filed its lien as per the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 48, par. 138.5), in which case the employer\u2019s lien can be satisfied from the award of the Claimant.\nIt is therefore ordered that the Respondent\u2019s motion to dismiss is denied.\nORDER OF DISMISSAL\nSommer, J.\nThis cause coming on to be heard on stipulation of the parties and the Court being fully advised in the premises,\nIt is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the above entitled litigation, including all counterclaims, be dismissed with prejudice and in bar of further suit, all matters in controversy having been compromised and settled.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Sommer, J. Sommer, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Goldberg, Fohrman & Weisman, for Claimant Coston Paschal.",
      "Roland W. Burris, Attorney General (Edward R. Telling, Special Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 86-CC-3357\nCoston Paschal and Buesing Brothers Trucking, Inc., Claimants, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed February 2, 1990.\nOrder of dismissal filed March 18, 1991.\nGoldberg, Fohrman & Weisman, for Claimant Coston Paschal.\nRoland W. Burris, Attorney General (Edward R. Telling, Special Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0229-01",
  "first_page_order": 341,
  "last_page_order": 343
}