Contreras v. Industrial Commission , 306 Ill. App. 3d 1071 ( 1999 )

JUSTICE RARICK

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant, Leonard Contreras, sought benefits pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 48, par. 138.1 et seq.) for injuries sustained while employed by City Foods as a laborer. City Foods is a meat packing house. On August 8, 1989, Contreras was cleaning a refrigeration unit when he fell from a ladder onto a concrete floor. He was seen by Dr. Robert Sawchyn, who prescribed physical therapy. He returned to work on October 24, 1989, under light duty restrictions. After several days, Contreras returned to Dr. Sawchyn, who prescribed more physical therapy and took him off work until December 18, 1989, at which time he was released for light duty work. When he returned to work he was assigned a job that he could not perform. He was again taken off work from December 15, 1989, through September 15, 1990. During this time he underwent a pain treatment program. An MRI of the lumbar spine, performed on February 22, 1990, revealed degenerative changes from L3-L4 through L5-S1. Contreras filed two claims alleging injuries to his back (90WC447) and both hands (90WC446).

He returned to work on October 1, 1990. On January 17, 1992, Contreras was injured when a stack of pails filled with meat, weighing between 400 and 500 pounds, fell on him, striking him in the back and pinning him between a table- and the floor. When he got up, he noticed pain in his back and legs. He attempted to work, but was unable to and went home. Contreras filed a third claim alleging injuries to his lower back and both legs (92WC22710).

All three claims were consolidated for hearing purposes. A hearing was held on September 20, 1993. Mary Ellen Nelson, a court reporter for the Industrial Commission (Commission), transcribed the proceedings (Nelson transcript). Contreras testified and the cause was continued. A second hearing was held on December 15, 1993, this one transcribed by Donna Marie Bishop, also a court reporter for the Commission (Bishop transcript). As a result of his accidents, the arbitrator awarded Contreras 10 weeks of temporary total disability (TTD) benefits in 90WC446, 476/? weeks of TTD benefits in 90WC447, and 161/? weeks of TTD benefits in 92WC22710. The arbitrator also found him to be permanently and totally disabled. The arbitrator filed his decisions on January 27, 1994. Contreras received them on February 7, 1994, and City Foods received them on February 14, 1994. On March 16, 1994, City Foods filed a petition for review in which it requested the Commission to furnish an original and one copy of the proceedings on arbitration. In late April or early May 1994, Nelson left the Chicago area and moved to Boston, Massachusetts.

On October 19, 1995, 19 months after City Foods filed its petition for review, Contreras filed a motion to dismiss City Foods’ petition for review, arguing that City Foods had not yet authenticated or tendered to him the transcript of the arbitration proceedings. Contreras also filed a petition seeking attorney fees and penalties. The Bishop transcript was filed on July 28, 1995. The Nelson transcript was filed on October 30, 1995. On November 22, 1995, Contreras filed an amended motion to dismiss, arguing that City Foods failed to exercise due diligence in prosecuting its review, resulting in extreme financial harm.

An evidentiary hearing on Contreras’ amended motion to dismiss was held on December 5, 1995. At the hearing, Contreras introduced the expert testimony of Jeanmarie Calcagno, an attorney who practices primarily in the area of workers’ compensation cases. Calcagno testified that she had a professional relationship with Mary Ellen Nelson contemporaneous with the Contreras case. In one instance, she sought a transcript and was informed that Nelson had moved to Massachusetts. She obtained Nelson’s address through the official court reporter’s office and subsequently contacted Nelson about the transcript. Within four to eight weeks Calcagno received a copy of the transcript in question. In another case, Calcagno had arranged for Nelson to fly to Chicago and testify before the Commission regarding her preparation of a transcript. Ultimately, her testimony was not needed.

Calcagno testified that if she did not have a copy of the requested transcript of proceedings two weeks prior to the return date on the request for review, she would contact the reporter and file a motion to extend time for filing an authenticated transcript. Calcagno stated that it would be inconsistent with an attorney’s duty of due diligence merely to rely on the Commission to obtain the transcript without personally contacting the court reporter.

City Foods introduced the testimony of Marvin Goins. Goins was the supervisor-court reporter for the Commission. Goins periodically spoke with City Foods’ attorney, Geraldine Balow, about the status of the Contreras transcript, but those conversations did not take place until May or June 1995, and Goins characterized them as “informal” and “in passing.” Goins could not recall any conversation with City Foods’ attorney prior to that time. Attorney Balow stipulated that she came on the case in May 1995. The only written request by City Foods regarding the Contreras transcript was dated September 15, 1995.

On March 28, 1996, the Commission denied Contreras’ motion, finding:

“1. That any delay in the completion of the transcript was the responsibility of the Commission;

2. That the Commission was aware of the problem occasioned by the out-of-state move by the former Commission court reporter prior to the completion of ordered transcripts and was further advised by respondent;

3. That both the Commission and respondent acted in a manor [sic] reasonably expected to promote rapid completion of the transcript, but the direct control over the former state employee had been lost and the remaining influence was limited;

4. That respondent demonstrated due diligence in its ordering and subsequent pursuit of the transcript; and

5. There is no credible evidence of intentional delay by the respondent.”

The Commission also denied Contreras’ petition for attorney fees and penalties. In its August 30, 1996, decisions, the Commission modified the TTD awards in all three cases and found that Contreras failed to prove that he was permanently and totally disabled. With respect to permanent disability, the Commission determined that Contreras failed to show that he fell into the “odd-lot” category. The Commission found Contreras to be permanently and partially disabled to the extent of 40% of the person as a whole. Contreras thereafter filed a timely petition for judicial review.

On review, City Foods argued that the Commission’s March 28, 1996, order was a final and appealable order and that pursuant to section 19(f)(1) Contreras had 20 days in which to seek judicial review. Because he failed to do so, City Foods argued, the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. The circuit court ruled that the Commission’s March 28, 1996, order was not a final and appealable order because it did not dispose of the merits of the case, and that it had jurisdiction to review the Commission’s August 30, 1996, decision.

The circuit court also ruled that the Commission correctly denied Contreras’ October 19, 1995, motion to dismiss. The circuit court found that the filing period set forth in section 19(b) was rendered inapplicable by the following stenographic stipulation contained in the request for hearing:

“Both parties agree that if either party files a Petition to Review the award and orders a transcript of evidence pursuant to the law and the rules of the Industrial Commission and the reporter provided by the Industrial Commission does not complete or furnish a transcript of evidence within the time fixed by law, the opposite party will not raise the question of jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission to review said award of the Arbitrator upon the ground that said transcript of evidence was not timely filed.”

The circuit court also ruled that the Commission’s determination that City Foods had exercised due diligence was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The circuit court further found that the Commission decisions denying Contreras’ petition for fees and penalties was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, nor was its decision reducing his permanent and total disability award to permanent partial disability to the extent of 40% of the person as a whole.

On appeal, Contreras argues first that the Commission abused its discretion when it denied his October 19, 1995, motion to dismiss. He contends that the stenographic stipulation into which the parties entered relates only to jurisdiction, and neither relieves a party of its obligation to exercise due diligence in the prosecution of its case nor prevents a party from raising the issue of due diligence in a motion to dismiss. Contreras further contends that City Foods did not, in fact, exercise due diligence and that the reasons the Commission gave for denying his motion to dismiss are not factually supported by the record.

In response to Contreras’ arguments, City Foods contends that the stenographic stipulation was not a waiver of jurisdiction but an agreement by both parties and the Commission to accept substantial compliance with the filing requirements of section 19(b). City Foods maintains that the Commission has the discretion to allow a delay in the filing of the transcript for good cause and that the question of whether a litigant has demonstrated good cause is a question of fact for the Commission.

Section 19(b) of the Act provides in pertinent part:

“Unless a petition for review is filed by either party within 30 days after the receipt by such party of the copy of the decision and notification of time when filed, and unless such party petitioning for a review shall within 35 days after the receipt by him of the copy of the decision, file with the Commission either an agreed statement of the facts appearing upon the hearing before the Arbitrator, or if such party shall so elect a correct transcript of evidence of the proceedings at such hearings, then the decision shall become the decision of the Commission and in the absence of fraud shall be conclusive.” 820 ILCS 305/19(b) (West 1994).

The right to have an award reviewed by the Commission is lost by a failure to file an agreed statement of facts or a transcript of the evidence within the time period specified in section 19(b). Corn Belt Motor Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 389 Ill. 320, 59 N.E.2d 652 (1945). The timely filing of such statement of facts or transcript is a prerequisite to the Commission’s obtaining jurisdiction. See Gould Construction Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 311 Ill. 472, 143 N.E. 73 (1924). However, the stenographic stipulation contained in the preprinted request for hearing form specifically provides that if either party files a petition for review of the arbitrator’s decision, the opposite party will not raise the question of jurisdiction on the ground that the transcript was not timely filed.

Contreras does not argue that the Commission lacked jurisdiction, however. Instead, he argues that City Foods failed to exercise due diligence in the prosecution of its review and that the stipulation cannot be read to excuse a party’s obligation to exercise due diligence. We agree. The stipulation clearly states that in the event either party fails to timely file a transcript, the other party will not challenge jurisdiction. The Commission’s jurisdiction is not at issue. What is at issue is City Foods’ diligence in prosecuting the review. Just as a petitioner may lose his right to proceed before the Commission by failing to file a timely petition for review, he may also lose his right to be heard by failing to exercise due diligence in pursuing his cause before the Commission. See Bromberg v. Industrial Comm’n, 97 Ill. 2d 395, 454 N.E.2d 661 (1983). Nothing in the language of the stipulation excuses a party from exercising due diligence. Further, to read it as eliminating any deadline for the filing of a transcript would permit and even encourage delay tactics on the part of a petitioner. The Act is a humane law of a remedial nature, whose fundamental purpose is to protect employees by providing efficient remedies and prompt and equitable compensation for their injuries. Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill. 2d 172, 384 N.E.2d 353 (1978). By its very nature, the Act mandates a duty of due diligence. To excuse parties from the duty of due diligence would undermine this purpose.

With respect to the question of whether City Foods exercised due diligence, we conclude that it did not. City Foods provides no reasonable explanation for taking so long to obtain the transcript. Although the petition for review was filed on March 19, 1994, Nelson did not move out of the Chicago area until late April or early May 1994. Attorney Calcagno, testifying as an expert witness on the handling of workers’ compensation cases, opined that City Foods did not demonstrate due diligence. The testimony of Marvin Goins, called as a witness by City Foods, demonstrates that City Foods did nothing until June 1995, and then only made casual inquiries “in passing.” The Bishop transcript was filed on July 28, 1995, 16 months after City Foods filed its petition for review. City Foods made no written inquiry regarding the Nelson transcript until September 15, 1995, and that transcript was not filed until October 30, 1995. We also note that pursuant to section 19 of the Act:

“If a reporter does not for any reason furnish a transcript of the proceedings before the Arbitrator in any case for use on a hearing for review before the Commission, within the limitations of time as fixed in this Section, the Commission may, in its discretion, order a trial de novo before the Commission in such case upon application of either party.” (Emphasis added.) 820 ILCS 305/19(e) (West 1994).

Notwithstanding a delay of some 16 months, City Foods did not avail itself of that remedy. Ironically, Contreras did file a motion seeking de novo review, but the Commission denied it.

The Commission gave no evidentiary basis for its conclusion that City Foods exercised due diligence. It made no mention of Goins’ testimony and completely ignored the uncontradicted and unrebutted testimony of Contreras’ expert, Calcagno. Although the Commission is not compelled to accept testimony simply because it is not rebutted, neither can it simply ignore it. See Sorenson v. Industrial Comm’n, 281 Ill. App. 3d 373, 666 N.E.2d 713 (1996). In addition, the circuit court specifically stated that Calcagno’s testimony would not be considered. By so doing, the circuit court compounded the Commission’s error.

The record demonstrates that City Foods failed to exercise due diligence in the prosecution of its review before the Commission, and the Commission’s decision to the contrary was an abuse of discretion, as was its denial of the motion seeking de novo review. The decision of the circuit court and the Industrial Commission are reversed, and the decision of the arbitrator is reinstated.

Generally, judicial decisions are given retroactive as well as prospective application. Brown v. Metzger, 104 Ill. 2d 30, 470 N.E.2d 302 (1984). This court has the inherent authority to give a decision prospective application only. See Aleckson v. Village of Round Lake Park, 176 Ill. 2d 82, 679 N.E.2d 1224 (1997). This court has never explicitly acknowledged that a party has an affirmative duty under the Act to proceed with diligence in fulfilling requirements necessary to perfect and prosecute a review before the Commission, although such can be implied from Bromberg. Under such circumstances, we believe it appropriate to limit our holding to prospective application only.

Circuit Court and Industrial Commission reversed; arbitrator’s award reinstated.

HOLDRIDGE and COLWELL, JJ., concur.