1 / 13

WCLA MCLE

Learn the proper procedure for reinstating dismissed cases for want of prosecution, standards applied by the Commission, and how reviewing courts assess these matters. Understand the petition process and grounds for reinstatement.

tinawebster
Download Presentation

WCLA MCLE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WCLA MCLE • Dismissal & Reinstatement: Form, Proof & Defense • Wednesday May 12, 2010 • Michael J. Brennan; Kane, Doy & Harrington Presenter • James R. Thompson Center Auditorium • Chicago, IL • 1 hour general MCLE credit

  2. Issue • What is the proper procedure for reinstating a case that has been dismissed for want of prosecution? What are the standards that the Commission applies to reinstate a case? How do reviewing courts look at these issues? • NOT COVERED: Dismissal of case for substantive reasons, like coverage of the WCA (Hagemann v. IWCC, No.3-08-0989WC, filed January 22, 2010)

  3. Rule 7020.9050 IL.ADMIN.CODE, Chapter II, Section 7020.90 • Section 7020.90 Petitions to Reinstate • a) Where a cause has been dismissed from the arbitration call for want of prosecution, the parties shall • have 60 days from receipt of the dismissal order to file a petition for reinstatement of the cause onto • the arbitration call. Notices of dismissal shall be sent to the parties. • b) Petitions to Reinstate must be in writing. The petition shall set forth the reason the cause was • dismissed and the grounds relied upon for reinstatement. The petition must also set forth the date on • which Petitioner will appearbefore the Arbitrator to present his petition. A copy of the petition must • be served on the other side at the time of filing with the Commission in accordance with the • requirements of Section 7020.70. • c) Petitions to Reinstate shall be docketed, and assigned to and heard by the same Arbitrator to whom the • cause was originally assigned. Both parties must appear at the time and place set for hearing. Parties • will be permitted to present evidence in support of, or in opposition to, the petition. The Arbitrator • shall apply standards of fairness and equity in ruling on the Petition to Reinstate and shall consider the • grounds relied on by Petitioner, the objections of Respondent and the precedents set forth in • Commission decisions. • d) A cause shall be reinstated upon stipulation of the parties filed with the Commission, which will • docket the stipulation. (Source: Amended at 6 Ill. Reg. 11909, effective September 20, 1982)

  4. Appellate & Supreme Court Cases • Hester v. Diaz, 346 Ill. App. 3d 550 (2004): failure to reinstate case may constitute legal malpractice • Zimmerman v. IIC, 50 Ill.2d 346 (1972): DISMISSED; burden is on the Petitioner; no abuse of discretion • Shiffer v. IIC, 53 Ill.2d 519 (1973): DISMISSED; prior dismissals relevant in considerations; burden on Petitioner; no abuse of discretion • Cranfield v. IIC, 78 Ill.2d 251 (1980): DISMISSED; Petitioner filed “Petition for Review” which was interpreted as Petition to Reinsate; still denied

  5. Appellate & Supreme Court Cases • Roberts v. IIC, 96 Ill.2d 475 (1983): DISMISSED; 19(h) Petition; Petitioner alleged no notice of dismissal received; dismissal order said “due notice given” • Bromberg v. IIC, 97 Ill.2d 395 (1983): DISMISSED; Hearing on Review continued on multiple dates; no abuse of discretion; not reasonable to “assume” case would be continued in absence • Notman v. IIC, 219 Ill.App.3d 203 (1991): DISMISSED; case dismissed “with prejudice” for failure to produce tax returns; timely Petition to Reinstate filed; no timely Petition for Review filed

  6. Appellate & Supreme Court Cases • Conley v. IIC, 229 Ill.App.3d 925 (1992): DISMISSED; no abuse of discretion despite Petitioner’s alleged lack of notice; duty of Petitioner to prove lack of notice; notice of dismissal not required to be served personally or by certified mail • Banks v. IIC, 345 Ill.App.3d 1138 (2004): DISMISSED; first Petition to Reinstate timely filed but never heard; second Petition heard but denied; no abuse of discretion; Rule does not require Petition to be heard within a certain period of time but does require Petitioner to “notice the Petition for a hearing” • Nestle USA v. IIC, 365 Ill. App. 3d 727 (2006): Respondent’s declaratory judgment and injunction action dismissed

  7. Commission Decisions • Diaz v. Marriott, 06IWCC0762: DISMISSED; over 1 year delay between filing of and hearing on Petition to Reinstate, citing Banks • Van Poucke v. Dominicks, 09IWCC0254 : DISMISSED; Commission vacates Arbitrator’s granting of Petition to Reinstate; “extreme delay” of over a year before filing Petition; Arbitrator relied on Petitioner’s lawyer’s representation as officer of court that no notice was received • Harris-Hart v. American Legion Post, 09IWCC0377: REINSTATED; hearing on Amended Petition to Reinstate 4 years after original Petition filed; equities work in favor of Petitioner after multiple changes of attorney

  8. Commission Decisions • Austin v. ABF, 09IWCC0438: DISMISSED; Petitioner did not appear on scheduled hearing date • Garza v. Duraco, 09IWCC0493: VACATED; dismissal of pro se vacated because Arbitrator did not conduct hearing • Valenti v. Rochelle Foods, 09IWCC0787: DISMISSED; case had been previously dismissed and reinstated for identical reasons; “not credible” second time around • Richter v. ADM, 09IWCC1128: DISMISSED; Petitioner being incarcerated not good enough for 8 year old case • Golemis v. Aramark, 09IWCC1222: DISMISSED; substituting attorney should have followed case and known it was above the line

  9. Commission Decisions • Hampton v. Kenney, 09IWCC1246: Denial of Reinstatement VACATED; Arbitrator did not conduct hearing • St. Vincent v. Daimler Chrysler, 09IWCC1247: Denial of Reinstatement VACATED; Arbitrator did not conduct hearing • Casteneda v. City of Chicago, 09IWCC1313: DISMISSED; Petition filed but not heard until 4 years later; no news is not good news • Rodriguez v. SOI, 09IWCC1347 : REINSTATED; Petition to Reinstate continued from time to time, but appealable order entered without knowledge of parties; settlement negotiations on-going and parties agree

  10. Commission Decisions • Eruteya v. City of Chicago, 10IWCC0058: REINSTATED; ARBITRATOR’S DENIAL REVERSED; pro se Petitioner did not get notice of dismissal; letter from Respondent’s lawyer not equivalent of Notice of Dismissal • Zdunczyk v. Cardinal, 10IWCC0193: OK to dismiss duplicative filing after hearing • Figueroa v. SOI,10IWCC0194: REINSTATED; ARBITRATOR’S DENIAL REVERSED; no appearance at hearing on Petition because of prior communication to Arbitrator as to payment of benefits and consolidation and stipulation of parties • Sanchez v. Pheasant Run, 10IWCC0258: REINSTATED; ARBITRATOR’S DENIAL REVERSED; missed only one hearing; dismissal is too harsh a sanction

  11. TTC Illinois v. IWCC___Ill.App.3d___, 918 N.E.2d 570, 335 Ill.Dec.225 (2009) 08IWCC0645/0646; 00WC50293/50294 • Cases dismissed 4-25-05 (Notice dated 5-3-05) • Petitions to Reinstate filed 6-27-05 • Petitions “did not set forth a date on which claimant would appear before Arbitrator and present his Petitions” • No notice of motion filed with original Petitions; No Form 23 • Respondent agreed in writing to reinstatement; rescinded • Notice of Motion dated 10-31-06 • Hearing continued to 3-14-07; Arbitrator Dibble reinstates • Cases tried July 2007 (25% MAW & PTD) • Respondent’s Petition for Review (Reinstatement not listed?); addressed in SOE & Response • Cir. Ct. Judge Bleyer (Marion): waiver of strict compliance with Rule 7020.90 is manifest weight, but even question of law is OK

  12. TTC Illinois v. IWCC___Ill.App.3d___, 918 N.E.2d 570, 335 Ill.Dec.225 (2009) 08IWCC0645/0646; 00WC50293/50294 • “Although the 60-day limit for filing a petition to reinstate after it has been dismissed by an arbitrator for want of prosecution is jurisdictional in nature, we do not believe that the same is true of the contents requirements of such a petition as contained in section 7020.90(b)…As the Employer’s only criticism of the claimant’s petitions to reinstate is their failure to set forth the date upon which they would be heard as required in section 7020.90(b), we reject the argument that the Commission erred as a matter of law in reinstating the claimant’s cases.” • No abuse of discretion because there is evidence that the parties previously agreed to reinstatement; employer “acquiesced in deficient petitions”; delay due to agreement

More Related