Court Opinion

ID: 9711981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:43:35.697309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:08.954163
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SIMON, dissenting: The majority places undue emphasis on a general rule that, because the jurisdiction exercised by the circuit court under the Workers’ Compensation Act is a special statutory one, a praecipe in a fully completed form is necessary in order to create jurisdiction. (Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. v. Industrial Com. (1940), 373 Ill. 293, 296.) I do not agree that a failure to name or give addresses of parties in interest in the praecipe, as required by the Act, defeats the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. The omission that occurred here went at most to the court’s personal jurisdiction over a necessary party, and as such it was cured by the amendment of the praecipe and the subsequent appearance of that party without objection. Compare Nupnau v. Hink (1965), 33 Ill. 2d 285, 287, interpreting the jurisdictional provisions of the will contest statute (now section 8 — 1(a) of the Probate Act of 1975 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 110½, par. 8 — 1(a))). The praecipe is the circuit court’s first view of a workers’ compensation case and should therefore give notice of the level of complexity of the case and who is involved in it. The requirement that the praecipe contain the names and last known addresses of other parties in interest and their attorneys of record serves to identify the parties in interest to the circuit court; it also provides the court with an address to which it can direct any inquiries it may have during the pendency of the proceedings in that court or any orders which must be complied with after those proceedings are over. Failure to provide this information leaves the court without assurance that all parties in interest know that review of the Industrial Commission’s decision is being sought, and it may hinder the court in its efforts to get in touch with the parties or to understand initially who is being charged with responsibility and for what. However, it does no more than this. Inclusion of the missing information in an amended praecipe filed in timely fashion and before proceedings pursuant to the writ of certiorari begin tells the circuit court everything it needs to know about the case. The subsequent appearance of the unnamed parties, such as occurred here without any objection on their part, gives the needed assurance that everyone with an interest potentially adverse to that of the petitioner is aware of the petition for certiorari as the law with respect to personal jurisdiction requires. The rule that strict compliance with the terms of a special remedial statute is necessary to create jurisdiction of its subject matter is useful only to the extent that the terms which are to be complied with go to the substance of the remedy afforded, so that it can be said that the legislature might have been unwilling to permit courts to hear cases in which those terms were not met. It should not be assumed that “the General Assembly intended that the path from the Industrial Commission to the circuit court [be] an obstacle course” (International Harvester v. Industrial Com. (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 180, 194 (Dooley, J., dissenting)), or that it intended to make a minor omission with no substantial bearing on the remedy afforded by the Workers’ Compensation Act fatal beyond salvage. The interests safeguarded by the provision at issue here were purely procedural and were adequately protected by timely amendment and the voluntary appearance of the interested party. I see no good reason for depriving the claimant of his day in court.