versus the only workers compensation commission counsel oh please may have please the court counsel good morning your honour's my name is tommy strauss and i'm here today representing the of talent who is the employee in this workers compensation appeal mark or shushed on the issue as your honour's know was whether the mailbox rule applies to section one thousand and one of the illinois workers compensation act we submit that it does the start of any statutory interpretation question we know it by looking at the language of the statute itself section  the worker's compensation act says that when we're proceeding on a petition for review from the commission to the circuit court that the petition for review should be commenced within twenty days of any office that has proceeded in these receipt of that decision we look at the plain language and the statute itself does not define what the the word commence means nowhere in the statute one thousand and one does it say the mailbox rule applies but also it does not say that the documents from months literally be in the hands of the circuit clerk by the twentieth day given that the statutory language is ambiguous and as we know from this court's decision in one thousand nine hundred nine the jones decision which i cited to in terms of strict compliance and a prior interpretation of a different section one thousand one when we have an when we have a statutory interpretation question that involves a right to appeal we should construe that statute liberally because the idea is we should proceed on a case with the merits and not have the case thrown out on a technicality so we know that we should construe the statue of liberty a liberally we also know that in one nine hundred seventy seven in the alton case this court decided that the mailbox rule applied to section five day of the illinois workers compensation act this court looked to section one point two five of the statute on statutes in terms of mailing documents to state agencies and determined that the mailbox rule applied so we are to know this court has said the mailbox rule applied at least to one provision of the only worker's compensation act so this court should not be able to say just compensation division that handles these cases and interpreting section one thousand b of the worker's compensation act determined that from an appeal from the arbitration level where we start files to the commission level that the mailbox rule should apply to that level and we also know that when in any kind of a case when you leave the circuit court to appeal a case to the appellate court starting in harrisburg and then codified in supreme court rule three seventy three that the mailbox rule applies when you file of an appeal out of the circuit courts of the appellate court so if we look at the nature of a worker's compensation case and its natural progression to the court system this is what we have we start with an arbitration level case a hearing in front of an arbitrator if either side doesn't like that decision then we can file an appeal with the workers compensation commission and according to the appellate court's case and norris which was relying in part on this court's decision in all ten we know the mailbox rule applies so we have thirty days and a mailbox rule we know once you get from the commission then you can appeal the case to the circuit court at this point the appellate court has said and that's why we're here that the mailbox rule does not apply to that appeal but then there's an other the third appeal of right that we have and that's from the circuit court to the appellate court and again because of supreme court rule three seventy three we know that the mailbox rule applies to that thirty day time period so we have three appeals of right in any worker's compensation case and because of supreme court rule three seventy three and because of the norris case as a practical matter for pet for practitioners we now have the ability to use the mailbox rule for two out of well your honor of respectfully i don't think it is a new case and that is obviously something that council tries to really focus hard on in their brief is to make this seem like it's a new cause of action that if we think about it this is not some action in the circuit court that is divorced from everything that came before it justice holdridge in his dissent at the appellate court noted that section two dash two zero one of the civil procedure code says that unless provided by statute every action in the circuit court is started by a complaint well the statute that were interpreted as section one thousand f one of the worker's compensation act that the that we're looking at what it means in the section itself it's called a petition for review when we get to the circuit court what is actually happening what kind of authority does the circuit court have to look at this case when the commission hears the case they have a noble review that is not true at the circuit court level because what is the circuit court standard overview it's like any basic ad more lawyers know your honor clearly it is and if we want to call it a new action that's fine but it's no different than saying every part of this process is a new action you just stated that it gets a new case number and that's something that counsel points out in his brief but this case now has had five new case numbers it has the arbitration case number the commission gave it a new case number the circuit court gave a new case number bellecourt gave a new case number and the supreme court gave it a new case number just because something has a new case number does not mean i have had five independent cases here and causes of action when you think about what a cause of action is at the circuit court most of the time you're filing a civil lawsuit and one of the concerns that council may bring up to you today is a concern about opening the floodgates that somehow if this court in the group cheska decision says that the mailbox rule applies to one thousand f one you're going to have practitioners in the civil world come in and try to now do what we've already known to the prior case while the can't do try to file civil complaints by the mail to protect your statute of limitations again if we step back and think about the reality of that for ten die i am well i am but pretend i'm filing a plaintiff's auto accident case in the circuit court and i've just about run up to the statute and rather than walking across the street to the south county courthouse i stick it in the mail and they don't get it in time so imagine rightfully that the defense counsel brings up a motion to dismiss go in front of the circuit court and say well your honor i thought that i could file this civil lawsuit by the mail even though all the other cases say i can't because the supreme court said in the group cheska decision that the mailbox rule applied to and one of the worker's compensation act for petitions for review i could be rightfully immediately thrown out of that court again we are interpret ing a specific provision of the worker's compensation statute nobody else in any other context is going to be able to cite this decision to say somehow it up and all the other civil case law has appeared in the past for civil decisions this is this if we agree with your position would this not affect other administrative review cases that come into the circuit court from a final decision of administrative agency now your honor it could depending on what arguments those counsel want to make but administrative review in the circuit court you know i'd have to be honest your honor i don't know how it happens with every other administrative review has been is clearly what the legislature has wanted to happen in this case would you think there's a difference if you are filing  complaint for a ministry review as opposed to a request for issuance of some of the work i think your honor in that situation we get it's linguistics but i wouldn't want to get caught up on what a complaint is  complaint or anything else because it really is again it's a review it's an it's an appeal the circuit court again has no original jurisdiction unless it's an issue of law to review any issue brand new it is only merely a standard overview going to go from the arbitration level to the commission to the circuit court to the appellate court and then in the rare case like today to your honor's in front of the supreme court it is merely one step in the administrative process not divorced from anything that came before it these are not five independent cases this is one case that has proceeded from the natural beginning of the arbitration case and your honors as a as a practical matter i don't know that counsel would admit this this morning but this this decision would benefit practitioners on all sides this is not something that just benefits my client my office or people that represent injured workers if this decision comes down that the mailbox rule applies it benefits everybody review with the commission using the mailbox rule and thirty days we can to file the appeal from the circuit court to the appellate court with a mailbox rule in thirty days which makes more sense to this court the say that it was the intent of the legislature to have these two polls the first and last appeal the mailbox rule apply but to carve out this don't need a whole exception in the middle the odd person out that it should not apply at the circuit court of appeal or that in order and the common sense manner to simply say that you treat every level the same that mailbox rule applies at all levels it's simplistic it brings harmony to the work compact and it's consistent with every other decision that is discussed these issues it important whether we characterize this as a new action or in well again your honor it depends what you want to call a new action you know the majority in the appellate court said they could not understand how you can say a new action heard this action has started or commence until the documents are filed with the circuit circuit court but it is not the appeal from the circuit court to the appellate court is that not an action i mean it's a new action in the appellate court but we already know from supreme court rule three seventy three that the mailbox rule applies to that so i guess it's a new action but again it's a review as we talked with your honor previously about that it's a review this is not a new cause of action and if you think about the history of the purpose of the workers compensation act to begin with the reason we have the act was to help avoid to have employers sued in civil court over injuries that happened on the job site or in the workplace so when i go to the circuit court i cannot under normal circumstances if my client gets injured on the job depending again on the circumstances i don't go into the employer and civil court this is not some brand new action i go through the administrative review  level the commission level and if we don't like the commission's decision we appeal the case to the circuit court and again the circuit court only has review it's called a proceeding for review the standard of review is a manifest weight standard this is not you can call it a new review or a new action in the of appeal process but in no way shape or form is this an independent brand new cause of action that this is pulled out of the ether that has no connection to anything that happened before it and if this court were  d to determine that the mailbox rule does not apply frankly maybe for the reason that the language of the statute doesn't specifically say it should then it calls into question this court's decision and all thing because the language isn't in five  c now how do i know that i can even file things through the mail from proceedings from the arbitration to the commission i'm not sure that i can know so now i'm going to have confusion on the the first case or the second case but i know for sure in the third case i can appeal it well that was the concern clearly of the dissents justice stewart and justice holdridge in justice stuart moore in particular was concerned that that's in effect what would happen it would leave practitioners who now for years have relied upon norris to file cases from the arbitration level to the commission using the mailbox rule it calls that into question because in one thousand b of the worker's compensation act it doesn't mention anything about the mailbox rule either so again we're reading this into the statute to begin with and if this court were to say we're not going to read it into one thousand one well then what right did the appellate court have to read it into one thousand be so then we're going to have again in a three rights of appeal process only the third appeal then the one from supreme court rule three seventy three from the circuit court of the appellate court where you can actually use the mailbox rule so again i ask this court what makes more sense to have one out of three where you can use the mailbox rule to have two out of three which is kind of how upheld if you don't consider it overturned two out of three or does it make more sense to say three out of three and again this decision if you will if you were polled the appellate decision it does call into question nords and one in deciding if you if you mail proof that you've paid for the the record which is long as you provide proof that you mailed to the commission the cost of the record that was sufficient so you did the commission rule for this petition for review then again we have to ask how does it make any sense that the mailbox rule applies to the providing of proof that you mailed and money to the commission to pay for the record because it doesn't mention that in one thousand f one either everything makes sense all to make sense norris makes sense lashley makes sense the statute makes sense and it makes sense to all of us mr stroeve let me ask you this question  or more than sixty days well i just i mean i have a follow up question but what's your understanding of what they're talking about how you phrase it and the sixty well that's just when the your honor when the circuit court has to get the summons out to somebody to have the return for the respondent employer to get their response back to the circuit court but interestingly but it doesn't refer to what the clerk has to do exactly what you or doesn't know if it does it doesn't that that time frame only is when they have to get it out once it's requested in terms of what the timeframe is for the employer to get the response back so interestingly even if i go and file my case literally at the courthouse for the appeal on the twentieth day there is nothing in the statute that says that that circuit clerk if it's four thirty in the afternoon on a friday that they can't wait until the following monday or two weeks later if they want to to issue the summons there's nothing that says that's true so there is no other definite time frame here that has to be followed so you have with the circuit court does which has no timeframe the twenty days applies strictly to us and us getting the documents to the court and so when you're looking at just what our actions are why shouldn't we be able to do the same thing that we do in supreme court rule three seventy three with the appellate court initially said in nora's is that we can use the mailbox rule that i want to point out we already have twenty days which is ten days fewer at the circuit court level again as a practical matter and how we work with these cases so we  have the thirty days mailbox rule for the first appeal thirty days mailbox rule for the last appeal but are we saying that the legislature meant that we're going to have twenty days and not only do you just have twenty days we're going to give you a lot more to do because you have to get the record paid for you have to get the rest requests for summons out of the circuit court and if your insurance company you have to give track somebody down at the employer who has the authority to execute an appropriate appeal bond find somebody else who can act as surety and get all of these things actually done within twenty days and actually in the circuit clerk's office why if we have these two polls well we have this liberal standard the thirty days are we going to say the legislature wanted an extremely strict interpretation of the twenty frankly respondents and petitioners need the full twenty days to get all the documents together especially respondents with the appeal bond this helps them frankly more than a problem even helps us but it helps everybody get the full twenty days so we can get all the documents together thank you thank you this court will benefit both sides the compact is almost one hundred years old and it has taken one hundred years for someone to say hey wait a minute the mailbox rule should apply on filings and initiation of the new action in the circuit court it's taken us one hundred years to answer this question it's been clear in my mind for almost twenty five years of practice almost exclusively handling worker compensation cases that i have to have my documents in the hands of the circuit court clerk within twenty days from the date i received the decision not to throw it in the mail five days before the twentieth day not federal express other we have thirty days to file our petition for review we have thirty days to file a notice of appeal but we only have twenty days to file our suits in the circuit court i presume because i could not find anything that it is it was the legislature's intent to discourage lawsuits in the circuit court to make it difficult to file in the circuit court because the legislature intended for workers compensation actions to be heard by the industrial commission now the illinois workers comp commission and to have them resolved fully and finally at the commission level and not to burden the courts with these hearings i can't dance the debts only my presumption there's nothing in the legislative history but that's the only presumption i can make because there's only twenty days in which to file in the circuit court in to answer mr justice thomas question this is a new action summons to issue we don't issue summons with a petition for review was filed at the industrial commission level we don't issue a summons when we file a notice of appeal with the circuit court to go to the appellate court we are filing a new action in the circuit court and it is a request for summons to issue there is a specific time line to get that summons issued and the return date that mr justice kilbride asked about is a return date for the defendant in this case on the defendant i was the respondent i was the one who was named as the defendant if you will at the commission lot of all i could have lost this case and he the defen i've also i'm also naming the illinois workers compensation commission i am naming a new party to this action when we file in the circuit court it is the initiation of a new suit a lawsuit if you will not every action in the circuit court is a complaint we have petitions for discovery respondents in discovery you can't turn around and name a respondent in discovery a party defendant by throwing a complaint in the mail on the last day of your honor's have made that clear so we have a brand new lawsuit at the circuit court level we have twenty days to accomplish that fact and really it is amazing to me that this section has created such litigation over the years it's clear that your materials into the circuit court twenty days after you get the decision from the commission that said yes it would benefit us to have a ruling one way or the other i'll agree with that if everybody has to get their materials in within twenty days as it appears that the legislature intended everyone benefits in this instance the materials were mailed i believe on may sixth may be may fourth i don't recall specifically what they want received until may fourteenth the due date was may tenth it took if they had all the materials they could have had this in their hands in the courts hands within twenty days parlance it is an appeal however it is not technically an appeal it is a request for summons to issue and a review of the commission's decision it is an administrative review and  answer your question i don't believe this is any different than a regular administrative review there's a different time frame i'll grant you that but you're still issuing a request for administrative review you're initiation of a suit in the circuit court and they can't i can't stress this enough i believe and this is only my presumption but the legislature when the compact was was drafted wanted it to be difficult to go into the circuit court to review commission decisions they wanted to commission to be the final arbiter of work related injuries and they made it twenty  if you will from the appellate court in this case you do not overrule noris norris dealt with the filing of a petition review from the decision of an arbitrator to the industrial commission level to the three panel member level the rules of practice before our commission allow for the filing of documents by mail it's within the rules so the fact that the petition for review was mailed is consistent with the rules of practice that allow for that and is consistent with an appellate procedure which is different than what we have when we s statute and statutes is pretty clear if you're if you provide proof of service that you have mailed something to an administrative agency that is deemed conclusive of it being received even if it's never received but that is not the start of a new lawsuit the pardons defendant in this case me if i had lost and filed in the circuit court you know i have some right to the certainty that that twenty day provision provides us we have some right to know that after twenty days the commission decision is final we can't win when we checked with the circuit court and there's nothing on file you know we're done in this case i don't know when i'm going to be done it took ten days could it take two weeks could end up in the viaduct on the west side of chicago and we never get it or the clerk's office never gets it and then we have to reissue still it seems very clear to me that your documents in the clerk's hands within twenty days from the day that the decision it's very simple yes it's frenzy it can be frenzied but it's very simple get your documents in the c and there are many ways that you can document that that materials receipt are in the court's hands in twenty days you can go yourself and file it you can file things electronically if the circuit clerk accepts electronic filings and i think they federal express with the return receipt i know when my documents are with the clerk's office and who signed for them and i can give you a funny story rather embarrassing story involving this case margins were off by half an inch i still receive i finished i revised my brief made to comply with the supreme court role federal express stood down  compliant with the supreme court rules and it was in the clerk's office the next day by eight am and i know who signed for really if you have to documents in hand for five days whatever it was isn't it easier to just walk drive over to the clerk's office federal express or something so you can demonstrate that you have positively grant your conferred jurisdiction on the circuit court rather than coming up and well i mailed it i didn't get there on time but i mailed it again it's taken one hundred years for us to come up here on this issue i think it's clear that mailbox rule doesn't apply it's no not mentioned anywhere in just going back to what this court said in harrisburg about what the purpose of the mailbox rule is it's the modern trend now we could have driven to the cow or sycamore quicker but most attorneys that practice in worker's compensation practice in multi jurisdictions so it may not even just be an hour and fifteen minutes away it could be two hours away or two and a half or three hours is that what this court wants to say is again we can use the mailbox rule for two out of three levels but for that other level everybody the one in the middle you better make sure you get in the car drive to whichever county this case is in and go get it into the hands of the circuit clerk and time which means are going to have to get and have all the documents together well ahead of the twenty day period so you can make sure you can get it into your schedule to get down there and actually get it on file that doesn't make any sense with the other two appellate levels and again as your honor pointed out you could say they need some certainty as to when the twenty days a d you can say that about any situation where the mailbox rule applies if the arbitration case is not appealed to the commission it becomes a final decision of the commission but the mail box rule applies to that review so they have to wait a few extra days right away if you have three days if they're going to be the ones to possibly appeal it to know if it's a final decision that's what the mailbox rule is if there's a circuit court decision and we want to appeal it to the appellate court ordered supreme court rule three seventy three again we can use the mailbox rule it doesn't become a final decision of the commission until that thirty days runs or if it was sent out in the mail box until it's clear that the court never got it that is the whole purpose of the mailbox rule again for the majority in the appellate court to state that we don't understand how something can start until the clerk receives the documents and essence is to say they didn't understand the mailbox rule that is what it is the mail box rule is a fiction that was created to say that the document is not filed when it's literally in the hands of the clerk it is filed the day that it hits the mailbox to take into account that attorneys practice in multiple jurisdictions that attorneys use mailboxes that's what this court was talking about in harrisburg it just makes sense and again why would the legislature in the work compact have decided to make life that much more difficult for us counsel says well speculates it's because they wanted these cases to be hard to get to the circuit court we could say that about the appellate court to why are we c as your honour's know back in the day the supreme court is the one that took originally all appellate court or all workers compensation cases but because we were concerned the risk too much of a backlog and burdening this court with all the work comp appeals traded the workers compensation panels so that they could hear those we could say the same thing why are we burdening the of the appellate court worker's compensation panel with all these things that's make it really hard to get out of the circuit court to the appellate court but we don't because we use supreme court rule three seventy three to say the mailbox rule applies why are we going to say that anybody's rights for appeal because this is again is an appeal this is not a new action why is this court going to say that anybody's rights to appeal an injured workers or the employers should somehow be burdened with this absolute strict requirement that the legislature would have said we want the commission to be the final arbiter we don't want them to have this right to get to the circuit court and have their their case reviewed and hard we want to make it really hard for him to do that is that what this court wants to say the legislature was trying to do is to make it hard for everybody to exercise their rights i don't think so again this does potentially affect nora's it's not just that all ten in five day in norse in  dealt with different mechanisms or different parts of the statute for different things were happening it was the underlying fundamental philosophy of these decisions that the mailbox rule applied and so it doesn't matter if this court says the mailbox rule does not a thousand after the war compact because that informs how we look at every other provision of the work compact because for this court to say it doesn't apply is the say it's not in the plain language it doesn't apply it's not in the plain language of  it's not in the plain language of five a four alton it does affect those cases it affects lashley the appellate court's decision in one thousand f one and providing proof that you paid for the cost of the record it affects all these cases there is only one decision that this court can make it as i said before brings harmony to everything makes sense of everything makes everything simplistic makes our practice so much easier and council even minute it makes it better for them that makes our lives predictable that makes me know that the mailbox rule applies at every single level instead of guessing which ones it doesn't which it doesn't and that's for this court to reverse the decision of the appellate court and find that the the mailbox rule does apply to section nineteen f one of the workers compensation act and remand this case back to the appellate court for a decision on the merits thank you thank you mr rove mr reagan we thank you for your arguments this morning case number one one four two one twelve