LENA P.HOPPOCK, Claimant, DS. STATE OF ILLINOIS; Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant, an employee of the Illinois Public Aid Commission, sought an award for medical expenses incurred after a fall at work. The court found the services were necessary and approved by the employer, and awarded $108.00 for medical expenses, directing payment from funds available with the State Treasurer.
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
LENA P.HOPPOCK, Claimant, DS. STATE OF ILLINOIS; Respondent. . , Opinion. filed March 25, 1947.
CLAIMANT, pro se.
GEORGE F: BARRETT, Attorney General, and WILLIAM L. MORGAN, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent. , WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT-employee Illinois Public Aid COm mission. within i??ryrozrisims of- when award may be We for necesswy mediaal slervices-prbvided by claimant with the klzowledge and approbmation of employer. Where an employee bf the Illinois Public Aid Commission sustains accidental injuries, arising out of and in the course of her employment, and thereafter procures medical services with the full approval of her employer, an award may be made to compensate said , claimant for the necessary and reasonable medical. expenses so incurred.
SAME-Inasmuch as the Illfnois Public Aid Commission has funds available and on deposit with the State Treasurer for payment of compensation awards, the Court specifically directs the payment of the above award from the said funds. ’ ECKERT, C. J. , The claimant, Lena F. Hoppock, seeks an award under the p r o v k o n s of ‘the Workmen’s Compensation Act in the amount of One Hundred and, Eight Dollars ($108.00) for medical expenses which she incurred as the result of a fall, while she was employed by the Illinois Public Aid Commission.
Claimant’s duties required her to interview, and investigate the eligibility of a.pplicants seeking various types of public assistance. On Februa.ry 8, 1946, while in the performance of her duties, she visited the home of an Old Age Pension recipient in Kewanee, Illinois. As . she left the premises, she slipped on the top step, and fell to the pavement, injuring her leg.
Immediately following the accident she was taken to her home, and Dr. H. R. Varney was called. He ordered the application of ice packs, and the following morning [*207] !Or had claimant taken to the hospital for x-rays. She then returned to her home, but owing to the severity of the injury, it was necessary for her to enter the hospital on February 12, 1946, where she remained for a two week period.
Dr. Varney treated claimant continuously from February 8, 1946 to March 13, 1946. While she was in the hospital it was necessary for him to incise and drain coagulated blood from the injured tissues. Dr. Varney 's >. charges for his services amounted to Fifty-eight Dollars ($58.00). On discharging claimant, on March 15, 1946, he referred her to Dr. L. L. Spanabel for diathermy and other special treatment to. restore circulation in her leg.
Dr. Spanabel gave claimant twenty of these treatments, for which his charges were Fifty Dollars ($50.00).
The respondent did not provide the necessary medical services, but permitted claimant to secure such services with its full approval. The services were reasonably required, and the excellent results achieved, obviated any additional claim for disability. The reasonableness of the charges is' not questioned, and claimant is entitled to an awa.rd.
An award is therefore entered in favor of Dr. H. R. Varney in the amount of Fifty-eight Dollars ($58.00), and an award is entered in favor of Dr. L. L. Spanabel in the amount of Fifty Dollars ($50.00), both of which are 'payable forthwith.
Inasmuch as the Illinois Public Aid Commission has funds available for payment of compensation awards, the court specifically directs the payment of the above awards by the State Treasurer, as Trustee Ex-Officio, from the funds heretofore deposited with the State Treasurer pursuant to Section 181a, Chapter 127, Revised Statutes of Illinois. Payment of these awards from [*208] this fund is requested by the Illinois Public Aid Commission, and such request constitutes the necessary statutory direction.
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. ” (No. 3 9 9 5 4 l aim denied.)
MARZELLA SMITH, Claimant, us. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Opinzon filed March 25, 19.47.
ROSENBAUM and ROSENBAUM, for claimant.
GEORGE F. BARRETT, Attorney General, and C. A RTHUR NEBEL, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
C HICAGO PABK DIsmcT-Btate not responsible for liabilaties of . Article IV of Section 20 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1870, provides that the State has no responsibility for the debts or liabilities of such bodies as The Chicago Park District; they are municipal corporations which can sue or be sued in courts of general jurisdiction.
JuRIsDIcTIoN-where recourse can be had to coz~rtsof general jurisdictao12-and claimant fails to avaal himself t h e r e o e this Court is without jurisdiction to hear cLaim.‘ The Court of CIaims Act of 1945 (Chap. 37, Par. 439.8 111. Rev. Statutes 1945) does not extend the jurisdiction of this Court to include suits against municipal corporations. Claims against a municipal corporation, or other governmental entity, which can sue or be sued in courts of general jurisdiction, are not claims against the State of which this Court can take cognizance.
C. J. ECKERT, The claimant, Marzella Smith, on October 21, 1946, filed her complaint in this cause alleging that oli March ~ 29, 1946 she used a parkway sidewalk, in the Chicago Park District, known as South Parkway, at 48th Street, Chicago, Illinois, to enter a drug store; that in the darkness, she stumbled and fell over an unilluminated concrete post, or jagged edge projecting from the sidewalk [*209] on the parkway, injuring her left knee and~leg.Claimant further alleges that she is a house wife in care of children, earning an average of $2,000.00 per year; that she has spent $500.00 for hospital, medical treatment, care, and attendance, and will be required to spend further moneys in attempting to be cured of the injury; that she still suffers great pain; and that the injury is the result of the negligence of the Chicago Park District. She alleges that the Chicago Park District is a departmental function of the State of Illinois. She seeks damages in the amount of $2,500.00.
The respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that this court is without jurisdiction since the complaint sets forth a claim against the Chicago Park District, and not against the State of Illinois.
The Chicago Park District is a municipal corporation with power to sue and to betsued. The cause of action in this case is based upon itstalleged negligence. The State of Illinois is precluded from assuming liability for a claim against such a municipal corporation. Article IV, Section 20 of the Constitution of 1870, provides: “The State shall never pay, assume or become responsible for the debts or liabilities of, or in any manner, give, loan or extend its credit to or in aid of any public or other corporation, association or individual.”
Claimant’s theory, that municipal corporations and other governmental entities, are such agencies and arms of the State, that the State is responsible for claims against them, has been presented to this Court upon many occasions. The Court, however, has consistently held that it has no jurisdiction to hear and determine such claims: and that the State has no responsibility for the debts or liabilities of such bodies. Monaco et al. vs. State of Illimois. 9 C.C.R. 90; Joites vs. State, 10 C.C.R. 104.
[*210] I , 210 , In the case of Price vs. State, 8.C.C.R. 85, this court refused to take jurisdiction of a claim based upon the negligence of the Board of Park Commissioners of Lincoln Park, one of the predecessors of the Chicago Park District. At page 86 of the opinion the court stated: , “It has( frequently been held by the courts of this State that the Board of Park Commissioners is not liable for injuries occurring in . parks. (Stein, vs. West Park C q missioners , 247 111. App. 479; Hendricks, Admx. vs. Urbana Park District, 265 111. &p. 102; L we vs. GZencoe Park Dzstrict, 270 Ill. App. 117.) “Claimant apparently takes the position that if the Board of Park Commissioners is not liable, the State must be liable, but such is not the law. “The same position was taken by the claimant in the case of Raffaele Trombello, et al., Admrs., etc. vs. Xtate, No. 2237, decided at the January Term, A. D. 1934 of this court, in which the authorities cited by the claimant in this case were considered, and the conclusion ‘reached that the declaration there did not allege any liability on the part of the State. The court must necessarily arrive at the same conclusion in this case and inasmuch as there is no legalliability on the part of the State under the facts as set forth in the complaint, the court has no jurisdiction to make an award. “The plea to the jurisdiction is therefore sustained and the case dismissed.”
In the case of Monaco vs. State, 9 C.C.R. 90, the Court of Claims sustained a motion to dismiss because it had no jurisdiction of a claim of an individual against a municipal corporation and made the following stateI ments : “We are further compelled to take judicial notice of the fact that the Commissioners are officers of a municipal corporation, capable of suing and being sued. This court has repeatedly held that it has no jurisdiction under ‘An Act to create the Court of Claims and prescribe . its powers and duties,’ to entertain suits filed by individuals against municipal corporations as such individuals p u s t seek their legal remedy in courts of record in this State. Further, that such municipal corporations as the Board of Park Commissioners of Lincoln Park, the West Chicago Park Commissioners, and the South Park Board of the City of Chicago, and Boards of Education of cities of school districts, are not I arms or agencies of the State government so as to bring them within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.”
[*211] The Court of Claims Act of 1945 (Chap. 37, Par. 439.8, Illinois Revised StGtutes, 1945) does not extend the jurisdiction of this court to include suits against municipal corporations. The jurisdiction of the Court, by that act, is limited to claims against the State. Claims against a municipal corporation, or other governmental entity, which can sue or be sued in courts of general jurisdiction, are not claims against the State 6f which this Court can take cognizance. Claimant's argument should be directed to the legislature rather than to the Court of Claims.
Motion of Respondent is granted. Case dismissed.