Find Legal Information

INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION DIVISION
FILED: MAY 12, 2004

NO. 1-03-1377WC

PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant, Richard Keefe, filed an application with the Illinois Industrial Commission (Commission), seeking benefits fromemployer, Freedom Graphic Systems, Inc., for injuries suffered June4, 2001, pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS305/1 et seq. (West 2002)). On December 3, 2001, an arbitratorconcluded that claimant had suffered compensable injuries on thedate in question, arising out of and in the course of employmentwith employer. He awarded claimant $140,040.60 in outstandingmedical bills and prospective medical care. On July 23, 2002, theCommission affirmed and adopted the arbitrator's decision.

On August 9, 2002, employer filed an action in thecircuit court of Cook County, seeking administrative review of theCommission's decision. On November 6, 2002, the court dismissedthe action. Employer appealed, 1-03-0194WC, and we affirmed. Freedom Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n, 345 Ill. App.3d 716, 724, 802 N.E.2d 1262, 1267 (2003).

We first note that the record in Freedom Graphic Systems,Inc., 1-03-0194WC, shows employer's brief did not contain a copy ofthe arbitrator's decision or the Commission's decision. On October27, 2003, we issued an order requiring employer to file, on orbefore November 12, 2003, an amended appendix to its brief inaccordance with Supreme Court Rule 342(a). The order also statedthat in the event employer failed to file an amended appendix byNovember 12, it would be required to file, on or before November13, 2003, a statement of cause, if any, why its brief should not bestricken for failure to comply with supreme court rule. OnNovember 10, 2003, employer filed an amended brief, which failed toremedy the problems addressed by this court's October 27 order. Claimant later amended his brief to include a copy of the decisionsof the arbitrator and the Commission.

On November 18, 2002, claimant applied for relief undersection 19(g) of the Act and requested that the trial court enterjudgment against employer and award costs and attorney fees toclaimant. On April 10, 2003, the court entered a 19(g) judgment onthe pleadings for claimant and against defendant in the amount of$171,680.91. Employer appeals.

On appeal, employer's brief again fails to comply withthe requirements of Supreme Court Rules 341 and 342(a) in that itcontains neither a copy of the arbitrator's decision nor a copy ofthe Commission's decision in the appendix. On February 11, 2004,we ordered employer to file, on or before February 23, 2004, astatement with the clerk of the court, showing cause, if any, whyemployer's brief should not be stricken for failure to comply withsupreme court rule. Employer has entered no pleading showing anyreason why it should not, would not, and could not comply with ourorder of February 11, 2004.

On March 22, 2004, claimant filed a motion to dismiss foremployer's failure to comply with this court's rule to show cause. We took claimant's motion with the case.

At oral argument, employer suggested that it was notrequired to respond to the rule to show cause because the instantcase involves a section 19(g) petition, which does not involve thearbitrator's decision or the Commission's decision. Employerfailed to explain why its brief did not comply with Supreme CourtRules 341 and 342.

Employer attempts to require justification for ourSupreme Court Rules before they are given effect. However, SupremeCourt Rules have the force of law. They are not suggestions, norare they aspirational. Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill. 2d 204, 210, 652N.E.2d 275, 277-78 (1995). Employer has also chosen not to takethis court's orders seriously, as evidenced by his failure torespond to those orders.

Accordingly, we grant claimant's motion to dismissemployer's appeal for failure to comply with this court's February11, 2004, rule-to-show-cause order.

Appeal dismissed.

GREIMAN, CALLUM, HOLDRIDGE, and GOLDENHERSH, JJ., concur.