Caroline Mangiamele v. State of Illinois

This complaint was filed on the 21st day of July, 1945 by Caroline Mangiamele, surviving wife of Samuel Salvatore Mangiamele, deceased. It seeks an award under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for the death of claimant’s husband while employed in the Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police.

The record consists of the coinplaint, Departmental Report, waivers of statement, brief and argument on behalf of claimant and respondent.

The record discloses that claimant’s husband was 36 years of age.; that he was married to claimant and was the father of two children, namely Dominic0 Daniel and Frances Nancy, each under the age of 16 years and dependent upon him for support. The record further discloses that the deceased was first employed by the Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police,I on June 13, 1944 as a police oficer; at a salary of $175.00 a month. However, on July 1, 1943 his salary was increased to $185.00 a month.

[*4] On May 20, 1945 the deceased was assigned by his superior officer to a police detail. It was the duty of this detail to escort -o%cial personages to and from ceremonies being held at Soldiers’ Field in Chicago. It was the duty of the deceased to ride-a motorcycle in front of an official car. On the last mentioned date about 1:15 P. M., while proceeding north on Field Drive in Grant Park, Chicago, deceased motorcycle struck some loose gravel, causing him to lose control of his machine, which struck and caromed off the curb and then crossed a small parkway located in the center of the street before coming to a stop in the south bound traffic lane. Claimant’s husband was thrown from the machine, striking his head on the concrete curb of the parkway. He was removed by ambulance to St. Luke’s Hospital in Chicago, where he was placed under the care of Dr. H. B. Thomas, Orthopedic Surgeon, who rendered first aid, and kept him under treatment and observation until the 25th day of May, 1945, on which date claimant’s intestate died as the result of the injuries sustained as aforesaid.

The record further discloses that following the accident the Department paid deceased’s full salary from the date thereof until the date of his death, or for the period of May 21 to May 25, 1945, inc. in the amount of $29.84. The Division also paid $614.60 representing physician and doctor bills.

From a consideration of this record we make the following findings : That on the 21st day of May, 1945 claimant and respondent were operating under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act; that on the date last above mentioned, said claimant sustained accidental injuries which arose out of and in the course of his employment, from which he died; that notice of said -4 [*78] accident was given said respondent and claim for compensation on account thereof was made on said respondent, within the time required by the provisions of Section 24 of said Act; that the earnings of the deceased during the year next preceding the injury were $2,220.00, and that the a.verage weekly wage was $42.69; that the deceased at the time of the injury was 36 years of age and left surviving him his wife, Caroline Mangiamele, the claimant, and two children, all dependent upon him for support.

Claimant is therefore entitled to an award under Section 7 (h) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act in the amount of $4,800.00, which must be increased 171/70 under Section 7 (L), making a total award of $5,640.00, from which must be deducted the ~ u m of $29.84, paid to deceased for unproductive time, leaving a balance of $5,610.16.

An award is therefore entered in favor of claimant, Caroline Mangiamele, in the sum of $5,610.16, payable as follows: $ 620.40 33 weeks, May 21, 1945 to January 7, 1946-11 of which has accrued and is payable forthwith. $4,989.76 Payable $18.80 per week, commencing January 14, 1946.

Jurisdiction of this cause is hereby retained for the purpose of making such further orders as may from time to time be necessary herein.

This award is subject to the approval of the Governor as provided in Section 3 of “An Act concerning the payment of compensation awards to State employees.”

[*79] (No, 3926-Claim denied.)

PETER PERADOTTI, Claimant, vs. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Opinim filed.January 9, 1946.

ROBERT J. SPARR, for claimant.

GEORGE F. BARRETT, Attorney General; C. ARTHUR NEBEL,Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AcT-When May in filing claim will prevent recovery.

JuarsDlcTIoN-making claim for and filing applicatio? for compelzc sation within U i m fixed in Hection 24 of t k Workmen's Compensation Act is a condition precedent to jurisdiction, or the Court to hear claim u d e r said Act. Where it appears that state motorcycle patrolman sustained injuries and accepted an award for permanent total disability, but which he now alleges was less than agreed upon, his failure to assert his claim within one year after date of the accident, where no compensation has been paid, or within one year after the date of the last payment of compensation, where any has been paid, as provided in Section 24 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, renders court without jurisdiction to proceed with hearing on claim filed thereafter.

ECKERT, J. On May lst, 1942, the claimant, Peter Peradotti, a motorcycle patrolman in the employ of the respondent, was thrown from his motorcycle while forming part of a motorcycle escort for Admiraj Downes of Great Lakes Naval Training Station. Following the accident, claimant was hospitalized at the Highland Park Hospital until May 4,1942, and was under the care of Dr. H. B. Thomas until August 25, 1942, when he returned to work. No claim is made for medical services, nor for temporary disability. Claimant, however, alleges that he suffered a 15% permanent total disability for which respondent agreed to pay him the sum of $720.00; that through error he received only $400.80.

The claim was filed on August 18, 1945, approximately three years after the last payment of compensation. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss on the [*80] ground that the alleged cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of this State provides that application for compensation must be filed within one year,after the date of the accident, where no compensation has been paid, or within one year after the date of the last payment of compensation, where any has been paid. Otherwise the right to file such application is expressly barred. This court has consistently held that it has no jurisdiction of a claim filed after the expiration of the time fixed by the act.

Scott vs. State, 13 C. C. R. 163.

The claimant, however, contends that his claim is based upon an error in, the amount paid to him, and is not such an application for compensation as is barred by the act.

The court is of the opinion that claimant has failed to state a cause of action, except under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Under the provisions of that act his claim is barred. Section 24 is clew and specific. Claimant chose to accept a sum, which he now contends is erroneous, instead of pursuing his rights under the act within the statutory period. No remedy for such change of position is manifest. The motion of the respondent is granted. Case dismissed.