Hoenig v. State of Illinois — 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 562

ERVIN H. HOENIG, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant, a cook at the Chester State Hospital, alleged an abdominal rupture from lifting a pan of food. The court denied the claim because the injury did not fall under the Workmen's Compensation Act and no other statute made the State liable for employee injuries.

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

PERSONAL INJURY-when State not liable-Workmen's Compensation Act. REHEARING-when rehearing will be denied. When the petition for re- OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLE-

Rehearing denied May 14, 1931. PERSONAL INJURY-when State not liable-Workmen's Compensation Act. Where the declaration fails to state a cause of action and the proof shows that the injuries suffered does not come within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the State is not liable in the absence of any other statute creating such liability. REHEARING-when rehearing will be denied. When the petition for rehearing points out no facts or principles of law that were not considered in the decision of the case, a rehearing will be denied. JOHN FRED GLISTEN, for claimant. OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLETON, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

MR. JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant is chief cook at the Chester State Hospital for the Insane. He alleges that on July 4, 1930, he lifted a pan of food which caused him to suffer an abdominal rupture on the left side of his abdomen, and asks for an award for such alleged injury. The proof shows the rupture is a small one.

The declaration does not state a cause of action and the proof does not show claimant entitled to any award. So far as the record shows he did not lose any time from his work on account of the alleged injury, and the only expense it has caused him to incur is $15.00 for a truss. His injury does not come within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and there is no other statute making the State liable for injuries suffered by employees. The claim is therefore denied and the case dismissed.

On May 14, 1931, upon petition for rehearing, the following additional opinion was filed: Claimant has filed a petition for rehearing but it points out no facts or principles of law that were not considered by the court in the decision of the case, and is therefore denied.