Find Legal Information

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

JUSTICE CALLUM delivered the opinion of the court:

I. INTRODUCTION

On November 2, 1995, claimant, Johnnie D. Banks, Jr., filed an application for adjustmentof his claim under the Workers' Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 1994)). OnApril 21, 1999, an arbitrator dismissed his claim for want of prosecution. On June 28, 1999,claimant's counsel petitioned to reinstate the claim but did not set a hearing on the petition. Claimantobtained new counsel who, on February 28, 2001, filed a second petition to reinstate. An arbitratordenied reinstatement. Claimant sought review before the Industrial Commission (Commission), whichupheld the denial. Claimant sought judicial review, and the trial court confirmed the Commission'sdecision. On appeal, claimant argues that the Commission abused its discretion in denying claimant'spetition to reinstate his claim after the dismissal for want of prosecution. We affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

Claimant filed his application for adjustment of claim on November 2, 1995. The applicationalleged that, while working for employer, Mariah Boats, on June 29, 1995, claimant was injured whena coworker struck him with a pipe. No action was taken on the claim until April 21, 1999, when theclaim came up on the arbitrator's monthly status call. The arbitrator entered an order stating that"[t]his cause being called for arbitration, *** and all parties hereto having received due notice, ***and [claimant] having failed to appear, it is ordered that such cause *** is hereby dismissed for wantof prosecution."

On June 28, 1999, claimant petitioned to vacate the dismissal and reinstate the claim. Thepetition alleged that claimant's attorney received notice of the dismissal on May 12, 1999. Claimant'sattorney was unaware that the matter had been set on the regular docket call and on April 21, 1999,was in court on several criminal matters. The petition did not notice a hearing date, and no actionwas taken on it.

Claimant obtained new counsel who, on February 28, 2001, filed a second petition to reinstate alleging that the first petition was never ruled on and, because claimant had a meritorious claim, thestandards of equity and fairness mandated reinstatement. The arbitrator denied the motion, andclaimant timely sought review before the Commission.

The Commission upheld the arbitrator's decision and reasoned as follows:

"The Commission finds that [claimant's] case was dismissed for want of prosecutionthree years and four months after the Application for Adjustment of Claim had been filed, that[claimant's] attorney of record had an obligation to keep track of this claim and that[claimant's] attorney *** filed a timely motion to reinstate this matter but failed to complywith Commission rule 7020.90(b). The Commission finds no evidence the Arbitrator abusedhis discretion in dismissing this claim. The Commission has done its own review of the recordand finds no reason to reinstate the claim."

Claimant sought judicial review, and the trial court confirmed the Commission's decision. Claimant timely appealed.

III. DISCUSSION

On appeal, claimant argues that the Commission erred in refusing to reinstate his claim. Ona petition to reinstate before the Commission, the burden is on the claimant to allege and prove factsjustifying the relief sought. Bromberg v. Industrial Comm'n, 97 Ill. 2d 395, 401 (1983). Whether togrant or deny a petition to reinstate rests within the sound discretion of the Commission. Conley v.Industrial Comm'n, 229 Ill. App. 3d 925, 930 (1992).

The Commission's rules provide that written notices will be sent to the parties only for theinitial status call setting on arbitration. 50 Ill. Adm. Code