Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Line of Duty Compensation
Download PDF

In re George Redman

35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 924 Illinois Court of Claims Filed October 7, 1982. No. 82-CC-2788
Disposition: (No. 82-CC-2788-Claim dismissed.)
Cite as: In re George Redman, 35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 924 (1982)
Line of Duty Compensation 35 dismissed 1980s In re George Redman 35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 924 October 7, 1982. (No. 82-CC-2788-Claim dismissed.) /opinions/v35-p1080-1/

In re APPLICATION OF GEORGE REDMAN, SR.

Case summary

Claimant sought compensation under the Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act for the death of a deputy sheriff. The court dismissed the claim because it was filed nearly eight years after the death, well beyond the one-year statutory deadline, and also because the claim was barred by res judicata from a prior determination that the death was not in the line of duty.

Claim type: Line Of Duty Death

Statutes cited: Ill.Rev.Stat. 1981, ch. 48, par. 281 et seq.; Ill.Rev.Stat. 1981, ch. 48, par. 283; Ill.Rev.Stat. 1981, ch. 110, par. 72; Ill.Rev.Stat. 1981, ch. 110, par. 2-1401(c)

Cases cited: George Redman, Sr. v. State of Illinois (1979), 32 Ill.Ct.Cl. 1031; 32 Ill.Ct.Cl. 1005

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

Headnotes

  1. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND FIREMEN COMPENSATION ACT-hit by train-death not in line of duty-claim denied. Claim for benefits under Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act denied as record established that deputy sheriff died due to being hit by a train, but there was no evidence that death was result of active performance of duties as law enforcement officer.
  2. SAME-untimely section 2-1401 petition dismissed. Claimant's petition for relief under section 2-1401 of Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed as petition was not filed within two years after entry of order of judgment from which relief was sought.
  3. OPINION ON DENIAL OF SECTION 2-1401 PETITION

This is a claim allegedly arising out of the death of a deputy sheriff seeking payment of compensation to the decedent's beneficiary pursuant to the Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Ill.Rev.Stat. 1981, ch. 48, par. 281 et seq. [*925]

The date of Applicant’s decedent’s death was alleged to have been August 12, 1974. According to section 3 of the Act (111.Rev.Stat. 1981, ch. 48, par. 283), in order for compensation to be awarded by this Court, a claim therefor must be made within a year of the death of the law enforcement officer. The instant claim was filed on June 28, 1982, nearly eight years after the decedent’s death. This alone is sufficient to mandate our denial of an award.

A claim based upon the same incident involving the same decedent and filed by the same Applicant herein was previously presented to this Court which claim was entitled George Redman, Sr. v. State of lllinois (1979), 32 1ll.Ct.Cl. 1031. A claim for benefits under the Crime Victims Compensation Act (Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 70, par. 71 et seq.) was also filed. (See 32 1ll.Ct.Cl. 1005.) Both claims were determined to be noncompensable primarily due to the failure of the Applicant to sustain his burden of proving that the decedent lost his life as a result of injury received in the active performance of duties as a law enforcement officer and/or that he lost his life as a result of a crime. In such a situation the doctrine of res judicata applies and therefore this claim would be barred on a second ground.

However, attached to the application in the case at bar is an affidavit by the Applicant stating that new evidence has been discovered which allegedly shows that the decedent was killed in the line of duty. Several pages of testimony of a witness in an unidentifiable type of hearing entitled “Partial Transcript of Proceedings” was filed along with the application. Applicant apparently filed this second application as a “Section 72 request” as he refers to it in his affidavit. We infer that he is referring to section 72 of the Illinois Civil Practice Act, (111.Rev.Stat. 1981, ch. 110, par. 72), which was renum[*926]bered section 2-1401 of the same chapter by amendment effective July 1, 1982.

According to section 2-1401(c) (111.Rev.Stat. 1981, ch. 110, par.2-1401(~)),petitions for relief in the nature of that which the Applicant is seeking must be filed not later than two years after the entry of the order of judgment. The final order in case No. 00092, Applicant’s previous claim, was entered on April 2, 1979, a point in time more than three years prior to the filing of the petition at bar. Therefore, construing the application as a petition for relief under the above cited provision of the Civil Practice Act, we are constrained by law to deny it as being untimely.

It is hereby ordered that this claim be, and hereby is, dismissed.

Official volume 35 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 1982 – July 1, 1981–June 30, 1982; Fiscal Year 1983 – July 1, 1982 – June 30, 1983)  ·  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.