Court Opinion

ID: 9861675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:19:02.155617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:49.342673
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE O’MALLEY, dissenting: The majority correctly states that the Code of Civil Procedure may provide guidance as to how the Commission should address a motion for substitution of a commissioner. Under the Code, a petition for the substitution of a trial judge for cause is to be heard “by a judge other than the judge named in the petition.” 735 ILCS 5/2 — 1001 (a)(3)(iii) (West 2000). A similar provision governs motions for substitution of a trial judge for cause in a criminal case. See 725 ILCS 5/114 — 5(d) (West 2000) (“Upon the filing of [a motion for substitution for cause] a hearing shall be conducted *** by a judge not named in the motion ***”). My research has uncovered no published authority in Illinois indicating the proper procedure for the disposition of a motion for substitution of an appellate or supreme court justice. Foreign jurisdictions are divided over whether an appellate judge may participate in the determination of a motion for substitution filed against him. Compare In re Estate of Carlton, 378 So. 2d 1212, 1216 (Fla. 1980) (motion for disqualification of appellate justice left “to the discretion of the justice sought to be disqualified”), with Tex. R. App. E 16.3(b) (precluding appellate judge from participating in disposition of motion for disqualification filed against him). I believe the impartiality that insures the fairness of adjudication is not preserved when the adjudicator whose impartiality is challenged himself decides whether he is impartial. Without passing on the form or merit of claimant’s petition, I conclude that a commissioner is not the proper party to determine whether he, himself, should be removed from a workers’ compensation case for cause. As Commissioner Stevenson was on the panel that sat in judgment of Stevenson’s potential disqualification, I would remand the cause for a determination of claimant’s petition by someone other than Commissioner Stevenson. The majority’s suggestion as. to what procedures the Commission should follow in the future does not remedy the prejudice that has already occurred. Therefore, I dissent.