Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Lebaw v. State of Illinois

8 Ill. Ct. Cl. 2 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1933-05-23 No. 2031
Disposition: (No. 2031-Claim denied.)
Cite as: Lebaw v. State of Illinois, 8 Ill. Ct. Cl. 2 (1933)
Legacy General 8 denied 1930s Lebaw v. State of Illinois 8 Ill. Ct. Cl. 2 1933-05-23 (No. 2031-Claim denied.) /opinions/v08-p0022-1/

ARCH LEBaw, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought $2,500 for personal injuries sustained as a state highway patrolman in a motorcycle accident. The court dismissed the claim because claimant failed to make a demand for compensation within six months after the accident as required by Section 24 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which the court held was jurisdictional.

Claim type: Personal Injury Negligence

Statutes cited: Section 24 of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1911

Cases cited: City of Rochelle vs. Ind. Com., 332 Ill. 386

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

Headnotes

  1. The same question involved herein was discussed and decided in the case of Quillman vs. State, No. 2008, post, and the decision is controlling herein.

On April 12, 1933 claimant filed his declaration in this court averring that he had received personal injuries while in the performance of his duties as a State Highway Patrolman. It appears that on the 17th day of August, 1929, while in the performance of his duties in the neighborhood of Salem, Illinois, while riding his motorcycle in a southerly direction a person or persons driving in the opposite direction suddenly turned to the west and ran into the claimant, throwing him [*3] to the ground injuring his left arm, left leg and foot. Claimant alleges damages in the sum of $2,500.00.

The Attorney General has made a motion to dismiss because it does not appear that claimant complied with the terms and provisions of Section 24 of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1911, as subsequently amended. The statute provides that a claimant for compensation must make a demand within six months after the date of the accident, which in this case was on August 17, 1931. There was no action taken in this case until April 12, 1933. Claimant returned to his work January 20, 1930, in the meantime having been appointed to the position of Sergeant.

The motion to dismiss is based upon the proposition that claimant has not complied with the terms and provisions of Section 24 of the Compensation Act of 1911 as subsequently amended, because no claim or demand appears to have been made upon the respondent by the claimant for compensation within six months after the date of the accident on August 17, 1931. We think that a compliance with the statute is jurisdictional. The Supreme Court in the case of City of Rochelle vs. Ind. Com., 332 Ill. 386, and in other cases, held that no proceeding for compensation shall be maintained unless claim for compensation has been made within six months after the accident. The making of such claim is jurisdictional and unless there is proof of the claim being made there is no jurisdiction. The motion, therefore, to dismiss will be allowed. Case dismissed.

Official volume 8 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed between July 1, 1933–June 30, 1935, and advisory Opinions furnished University of Illinois)  ·  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.