Find Legal Information

NO. 1-02-2860WC

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

Industrial Commission Division

______________________________________________________________________________________________

PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH delivered the opinion of thecourt:

Claimant, Diane Schulz, filed an application for

adjustment of claim under the Workers' Compensation Act (Act) (820ILCS 305/1 through 305/30 (West 2000)), seeking benefits forinjuries she suffered to her back which she alleged arose out ofand in the course of her employment with employer, Forest PreserveDistrict of Cook County, on December 30, 1989. Following ahearing, the arbitrator filed a memorandum of decision on June 29,2001. The arbitrator found claimant sustained injuries causing"complete disability" and awarded claimant benefits.

On July 26, 2001, employer filed a petition for review ofthe arbitrator's decision filed June 29, 2001. On July 27, 2001,the arbitrator filed a corrected memorandum of decision. Employerdid not file a petition for review of the arbitrator's correcteddecision filed July 27, 2001. On April 9, 2002, the IndustrialCommission (Commission) entered an order granting claimant's motionto dismiss finding the Commission lacked jurisdiction due toemployer's failure to file an additional petition for review afterthe arbitrator issued a corrected decision. Employer soughtjudicial review of the Commission's decision in the circuit courtof Cook County which confirmed the Commission's decision.

Employer appeals, arguing that the Commission erred by granting claimant's motion to dismiss. We affirm the order of thecircuit court of Cook County confirming the Commission's decision.

Claimant filed an application for adjustment of claimunder the Act seeking benefits for injuries she suffered to herback which she alleged arose out of and in the course of heremployment with employer on December 30, 1989. Following ahearing, the arbitrator filed a memorandum of decision on June 29,2001. The arbitrator found claimant sustained injuries causing"complete disability" and awarded claimant benefits. On July 17,2001, claimant filed a petition to recall stating claimant's namewas misspelled in the caption of the case and requesting the errorbe corrected. In a notice of recall, dated July 27, 2001, anddirected to counsel for claimant and counsel for employer, theCommission stated "copies of the above mentioned decision arehereby recalled for the purpose of correcting a clerical errorwhich now exists in said [d]ecision." The Commission directed thatcopies of the decision be returned and stated "in due course acorrected [d]ecision will be issued." The arbitrator filed acorrected memorandum of decision on July 27, 2001, dated andentered on July 26, 2001. Also on July 26, 2001, employer filed apetition for review of the arbitrator's decision filed June 29,2001. Employer did not file a petition for review of thearbitrator's corrected decision filed July 27, 2001.

On October 11, 2001, claimant filed a motion to dismiss employer's petition for review of the arbitrator's decision filedJune 29, 2001. Claimant stated that employer "has taken no[r]eview of the [c]orrected [d]ecision." The Commission entered anorder, dated April 9, 2002, granting claimant's motion to dismiss. The Commission referenced this court's decision in Campbell-Peterson v. Industrial Comm'n, 305 Ill. App. 3d 80, 711 N.E.2d1219, 1221 (1999), finding the Commission lacked jurisdiction overa claimant's case due to his failure to file a petition for reviewafter the arbitrator issued a corrected decision.

Employer sought judicial review of the Commission'sdecision in the circuit court of Cook County which confirmed theCommission's decision. This appeal followed.

Employer argues that the Commission erred by granting claimant's motion to dismiss. We disagree.

Section 19(f) of the Act provides:

"[T]he Arbitrator or the Commission may on hisor its own motion, or on the motion of eitherparty, correct any clerical error or errors incomputation within 15 days after the date ofreceipt of any award by such Arbitrator or anydecision on review of the Commission and shallhave the power to recall the original award onarbitration or decision on review, and issuein lieu thereof such corrected award ordecision. Where such correction is made thetime for review herein specified shall beginto run from the date of the receipt of thecorrected award or decision." 820 ILCS 305/19(West 2000).

Section 19(b) of the Act provides that "[u]nless apetition for review is filed by either party within 30 days afterthe receipt by such party of the copy of the decision andnotification of time when filed *** the decision shall become thedecision of the Commission and in the absence of fraud shall beconclusive." 820 ILCS 305/19 (West 2000).

In the present case, the arbitrator issued a correcteddecision on July 27, 2002. Employer did not file a petition forreview of the arbitrator's corrected decision filed July 27, 2001. The corrected decision became the decision of the Commission and is"conclusive."

Employer argues it "substantially complied" by filing apetition for review of the arbitrator's decision filed June 29,2001, and substantial compliance is "sufficient." Employer citesauthority which might allow this court to find substantialcompliance sufficient under section 19(f)(1) of the Act, but notunder section 19(f) of the Act. See Jones v. Industrial Comm'n,188 Ill. 2d 314, 327, 721 N.E.2d 563, 570 (1999) (Under section19(f)(1) claimant satisfied the material provisions of the statutewhere although proof of payment was provided after filing ofrequest for summons both occurred within the period prescribed bystatute.); Burns v. Industrial Comm'n, 95 Ill. 2d 272, 278, 447N.E.2d 802, 804 (1983) (Commission awarded benefits for 8 5/7 weeksand not 85 weeks; typographical error; neither party filed forreview of decision. The supreme court stated, "[t]his caserepresents a waste of judicial resources. It seems incredible thata typographical error could cause such problems. This wholesituation could have been avoided if both parties had been morecareful in their reading of the decision in its typed form.");Chicago Transit Authority v. Industrial Comm'n, 238 Ill. App. 3d202, 207, 606 N.E.2d 236, 239-40 (1992) (Single request forsummons, instead of two requests, substantially complied with therequirements of section 19(f)(1), where no showing of prejudice);Hallenbeck v. Industrial Comm'n, 232 Ill. App. 3d 562, 566, 597N.E.2d 797, 799 (1992) (Commission, on its own motion, correctederror; circuit court ruled that due to fact there was no letter ofrecall in the record, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction toreview corrected decision and the original decision remained ineffect; critically, claimant properly and timely sought review ofthe corrected decision; any error in review process was notclaimant's; circuit court did have subject matter jurisdiction.);and Chambers v. Industrial Comm'n, 213 Ill. App. 3d 1, 5, 571N.E.2d 1001, 1004 (1991) (Under section 19(f)(1), claimant'srequest for summons and for review of Commission's decision was insubstantial compliance with requirements even though it did notname employer's attorney of record, absent showing of prejudice.).

However, substantial compliance in cases applying section19(f)(1) does not apply in the instant case. This court hasdetermined that section 19(f) requires strict compliance. SeeCampbell-Peterson, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 84, 711 N.E.2d at 1223. InCampbell-Peterson, the arbitrator filed a memorandum of decision onSeptember 27, 1996. On October 24, 1996, the employer filed amotion to correct the arbitrator's decision based on a"clerical/computer error" that omitted certain portions of thedecision it received from the arbitrator concerning entitlement totemporary total disability benefits. On October 29, 1996, theclaimant filed with the Commission his petition for review of thearbitrator's decision filed September 27, 1996. Thereafter, thearbitrator granted the employer's motion to correct and on January15, 1997, the Commission issued a notice stating that thearbitrator's September 1996 decision was being recalled because "aprinter error was made when copies of the arbitration decision wereprinted for mailing." On January 15, 1997, the arbitrator issueda corrected decision. The claimant did not file a petition forreview with the Commission from this corrected decision.

The Commission determined it lacked jurisdiction over theclaimant's case due to his failure to perfect review following theissuance of the arbitrator's corrected decision, and it dismissedhis claim. The trial court granted the employer's motion todismiss based on a lack of its jurisdiction over the matter. Theclaimant appealed arguing the corrections made to the arbitrator'soriginal decision were technical, were not made for the purpose ofcorrecting an error or inconsistency, did not materially affect therights of the parties, and were made only for the purpose ofproviding the employer with a "clean copy" of the initial decision. Under these circumstances, the claimant suggested strict compliancewith the section 19(f) requirement of filing a petition for reviewfrom a corrected decision was unnecessary and that no purpose wouldbe frustrated in allowing his initial petition for review to stand. This court disagreed stating: "In adhering to strict compliancewith section 19(f), we conclude that the Commission correctlydetermined that it lacked jurisdiction over claimant's case due tohis failure to perfect review following the issuance of thearbitrator's corrected decision, and its dismissal of claimant'sclaim was proper." Campbell-Peterson, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 84, 711N.E.2d at 1223.

In Luttrell v. Industrial Comm'n, 154 Ill. App. 3d 943,954, 507 N.E.2d 533, 542 (1987), this court reasoned, "[t]hecrucial point is that the goal and purpose of the statute wassatisfied, i.e., notice to the Industrial Commission and theparties." In the present case, the goal and purpose of section19(f), i.e., notice to the Commission and the parties, was notsatisfied. The fact that employer filed a petition for review ofthe arbitrator's decision filed June 29, 2001, "which spelled[claimant's] name correctly[,]" is irrelevant. Section 19(f) ofthe Act provides that the arbitrator may correct any clerical errorwithin 15 days after the date of receipt of any award by thearbitrator, and where such correction is made, the time for reviewshall begin to run from the date of the receipt of the correctedaward. Unless a petition for review is filed by either partywithin 30 days after the receipt of the "corrected award," thedecision shall become the decision of the Commission and in theabsence of fraud shall be conclusive. Employer did not comply withthe Act. Employer did not file a petition for review within 30days of the arbitrator's corrected memorandum of decision filedJuly 27, 2001.

We affirm the order of the circuit court of Cook Countyconfirming the Commission's decision.

Affirmed.

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