Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

McCormack v. State of Illinois

6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 546 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1931-05-14 No. 1648
Disposition: (No. 1648-Claimant awarded $1,725.00.) Award: $1,725.00 Agency: Southern Illinois Normal University
Cite as: McCormack v. State of Illinois, 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 546 (1931)
Legacy General 6 awarded 1930s McCormack v. State of Illinois 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 546 1931-05-14 (No. 1648-Claimant awarded $1,725.00.) /opinions/v06-p0575-1/

W. T. McCORMACK, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant, a head carpenter, was injured when a scaffold board tipped, causing him to fall and fracture his heel and suffer other injuries. The court, following the Attorney General's recommendation, awarded him $1,725.00 in compensation.

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 OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLE-

The claimant was employed as head carpenter for the Southern Illinois Normal University. On or about the 25th day of February while employed in painting and redecorating and tearing out certain cabinets in the chemical room and working on a scaffold of about ten feet in height, a workman assisting him stepped off of one of the boards permitting the claimant on the other end of the board to fall to the floor and fractured the heel bone of his left foot, wrenched both of his wrists and wrenched his back and caused a contusion of the back part of his head.

The Attorney General comes and defends and recommends that if this court finds the claimant operated under the Workmen's Compensation Act that claimant be allowed a compensation of $1,725.00.

Therefore, it is recommended that claimant be awarded the sum of $1,725.00.

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.