Preston v. Bell Trucking

April 9, 1998

No. 4--97--0526
_________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

A.D., 1998

ROBERT PRESTON, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
) for the 10th Judicial Circuit
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Stark County, Illinois
)
v. ) No. 96--MR--4
)
BELL TRUCKING, ) Honorable
) Bruce W. Black
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding
_________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE BRESLIN delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________________________

In law, as in life, a few simple rules make everything run
more smoothly. Two of those rules would have made a world of
difference in the instant case: Read the instructions. Play by
the rules. The defendant, Bell Trucking, failed to follow either
of these rules. It failed to file an appearance with the Illi-
nois Industrial Commission (Commission) before taking any action
in a worker's compensation case. And it definitely did not
follow the statute's mandate. As a result, we affirm the judg-
ment of the circuit court in favor of the plaintiff, Robert
Preston.
The facts in this matter are convoluted. To simplify them,
we will note the important events according to date.
10/04/88 Plaintiff was injured at work.
09/19/90 Plaintiff filed an Application for
Adjustment of Claim with the Commission. He
was represented by two attorneys with differ-
ent office addresses. The Commission mis-
takenly entered one of plaintiff's attorneys
into its master file as defendant's attorney.
10/20/90 Defendant's attorney notified plaintiff's
attorneys that he would be representing
defendant.
05/15/91 Plaintiff's attorney reminded defendant's
attorney to file an appearance with the
Commission.
05/23/94 Plaintiff's attorney reminded defendant's
attorney a second time to file an appearance
with the Commission.
01/04/96 Arbitration hearing held.
01/29/96 Arbitrator's award filed with the Commission.
Notice sent to both of plaintiff's attor-
neys. No notice sent to defendant.
02/05/96 Plaintiff's attorney received the decision of
the arbitrator.
03/11/96 Plaintiff's attorney demanded payment from
defendant.
03/18/96 Defendant received a copy of arbitrator's
decision.
04/15/96 Petition for review mailed by defendant.
04/19/96 Petition for review received by Commission.
05/30/96 Defendant filed appearance with the Commis-
sion.
08/08/96 Plaintiff moved to dismiss defendant's
petition for review, claiming that the peti-
tion was untimely and that the Commission had
lost jurisdiction.
10/04/96 Plaintiff filed complaint for enforcement of
the arbitration award in the circuit court.
10/15/96 Plaintiff moved to stay proceedings before
the Commission.
10/24/96 Commission ruled that the defendant's peti-
tion for review was timely but stayed further
proceedings pending the outcome of the
circuit court action.
11/08/96 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's circuit court action and a
petition for sanctions pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 137. 155 Ill. 2d R. 137.
12/13/96 Defendant withdrew its motion to dismiss and
petition for sanctions and tendered to plain-
tiff the amount of the arbitrator's award and
interest. Defendant admitted that the fees
and costs claimed by plaintiff's attor-
neys were reasonable but denied liability for
those charges.
12/16/96 Circuit court imposed sanctions upon defen-
dant for costs and fees both on arbitration
and in the circuit court.
ANALYSIS
The complex pattern of facts leading to this appeal portends
an equally complex solution. Fortunately, the answer is simple.
Section 19(i) of the Workers' Compensation Act provides that
a party "upon taking any proceedings or steps whatsoever" before
the Commission shall file his name and address, or the name and
address of an agent upon whom all notices shall be served.
(Emphasis added.) 820 ILCS 305/19(i) (West 1996). This section
further provides that "[i]n the event such party has not filed
his address, or the name and address of any agent as above
provided, service of any notice may be had by filing such notice
with the Commission." 820 ILCS 305/19(i) (West 1996).
When an arbitrator renders a decision and files that deci-
sion with the Commission, the Commission must immediately send
copies of the decision to the parties. The parties then have 30
days from the day they receive the arbitrator's decision to file
a petition for review before the Commission. 820 ILCS 305/19(b)
(West 1996). Once this 30 days has passed with neither party
filing a petition for review, the decision of the arbitrator
becomes the decision of the Commission and is final. 820 ILCS
305/19(b) (West 1996).
If the employer refuses to pay compensation pursuant to a
final award of the Commission, the employee may institute an
action in circuit court to enforce the award. 820 ILCS 305/19(g)
(West 1996). In such case, the court shall order the employer to
pay reasonable attorney fees and costs for both the arbitration
proceeding and the circuit court proceeding. (Emphasis added.)
820 ILCS 305/19(g) (West 1996).
In the case at bar, the defendant failed to file an appear-
ance with the Commission in clear violation of section 19(i) of
the Act. By doing so, the defendant allowed the filing of docu-
ments with the Commission to serve as its notice of those docu-
ments. Such documents would include memorandums of arbitrators'
decisions. Because the defendant did not provide the Commission
with a name and address where notices could be sent, the filing
of the arbitrator's decision with the Commission was sufficient
to notify the defendant of the decision. Thus, the defendant is
held to have received notice of the arbitrator's decision on
January 29, 1996.
Working forward from that date, we find that the defendant's
petition for review should have been filed on or before February
28, 1996. It was not. Thus, the decision of the arbitrator
became the final decision of the Commission on that date.
Some 9« months passed between the time the decision of the
Commission became final and the time the defendant tendered
payment to the plaintiff. During this time, the defendant filed
an untimely petition for review, moved to dismiss the plaintiff's
circuit court action, and even asked the circuit court to sanc-
tion the plaintiff's attorneys for filing his complaint. Still,
the defendant contends that it did not "refuse" to pay the
plaintiff's award. While the defendant may never have expressly
stated, "We won't pay you," the fact that the defendant filed
motion after motion seeking to be freed of its obligation cer-
tainly evinces a refusal to pay. We find that the defendant
refused to pay the award to the plaintiff as that word is used in
section 19(g) of the Act. See Kleiboecker v. Industrial Comm'n,
236 Ill. App. 3d 1020, 602 N.E.2d 912 (1992) (employer made no
effort to comply with the decision of the Commission for over one
month).
Because the defendant refused to pay the award of the Commi-
ssion for over nine months, the plaintiff was entitled to reason-
able attorney fees and costs. The defendant agreed that the fees
and costs sought by the plaintiff were reasonable. Thus, we hold
that the trial court properly awarded reasonable fees and costs
to the plaintiff.
The judgment of the circuit court of Stark County is af-
firmed.
Affirmed.
McCUSKEY, P.J., and HOMER, J., concur.