Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Line of Duty Compensation
Download PDF

Novak v. State of Illinois

6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 539 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1931-05-14 No. 1626
Disposition: (No. 1626-Claimant awarded $125.00.) Award: $425.00 Agency: Department of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Highways
Cite as: Novak v. State of Illinois, 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 539 (1931)

JOSEPH NOVAK, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought compensation for personal injury sustained while employed by the State in extra hazardous work. The court recommended an award of $425.00 under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Claim type: Personal Injury Negligence

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. PERSONAL INJURY-when award will be made-Workmen's Compensation

PERSONAL INJURY-when award will be made-Workmen's Compensation Act. Where it appears that claimant received personal injuries in line of duty while working for the State at an extra hazardous employment, an award will be made and the amount determined under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. CLARK, YOUNG & BULL, for claimant. OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; CARL I. DIETZ, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE CLARITY delivered the opinion of the court:

[*540] This is a claim for personal injury sustained by claimant while he was employed by the State of Illinois through its Department of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Highways. There is no contention but that the employment was extra hazardous and the Attorney General appearing in open court recommends that there is a liability on the part of the State of Illinois and that under the Workmen's Compensation Act claimant is entitled to an allowance in the sum of $425.00.

Thereupon, the court recommends that the claimant be allowed the sum of $425.00.

Official volume 6 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed between July 1, 1927–June 30, 1931)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.