Court Opinion

ID: 9862043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:58:43.567183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:29:57.486408
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, specially concurring: I concur in the decision finding the circuit court did properly have jurisdiction of the review proceeding. I also concur in the determination that the facts of this case do not support the award of benefits. I write separately as to the jurisdiction issue. The bond as filed fully complied with section 19(f)(2). Although a copy, it was timely, properly executed, and Wal-Mart was responsible pursuant to the terms of the bond. A Wal-Mart defense against recovery on the bond as filed, that it was not the original bond, would be without merit. As the majority makes clear, those cases involving bonds signed by attorneys are clearly distinguishable. Here, the record clearly shows there was a sufficient bond, the copy filed shows coverage had been obtained, and there is no dispute that the bond was in proper form.