Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.) Opinion filed December 30, 2016

FIFTH DIVISION

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

LARRY ORUTA, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Cook County. Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 11 L 8803 ) B.E.W. and CONTINENTAL, ) The Honorable ) James Flannery, Jr., Defendants. ) Judge, presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE GORDON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justice Reyes concurred in the judgment and opinion. Justice Lampkin specially concurred, with opinion.

OPINION Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

¶1 This court has dismissed three prior appeals by plaintiff in this same case

for lack of jurisdiction. Oruta v. B.E.W.,

-U1 (Dec. 5,

2014) (Oruta 1);2 Oruta v. B.E.W.,

(Aug. 1, 2014)

(Oruta 2); Oruta v. B.E.W.,

(Dec. 20, 2013)

(Oruta 3).3 For the following reasons, this opinion will mark our fourth time

dismissing an appeal by the same litigant in the same case for lack of

jurisdiction.

¶2 BACKGROUND

¶3 I. First Appeal

¶4 We provide a description of the prior appeals in this opinion, so that

issues do not repeat themselves. We quote from the documents because the

events of this case are so bizarre that they would be hard to believe without

documentation. Just for example, plaintiff was able to obtain from the trial 1 Although two of these appeals were decided by Supreme Court Rule 23 orders which generally "may not be cited," the rule specifically allows them to be cited for the "law of the case," which is the purpose for which we cite them here. Ill. S. Ct. R. 23 (eff. July 1, 2011). 2 Although citation style does not require us to include decision dates, we provide them here to indicate how frequently we addressed the same issues with the same plaintiff–more than three times in three years. 3 We also dismissed at least two other appeals by plaintiff for want of prosecution. Oruta v. Continental Air Transport, No. 1-14-0404 (Nov. 24, 2014) (for failure to file a brief), petition for leave to appeal denied, No. 118911 (Sept. 30, 2015); Oruta v. Continental Air Transport, No. 1-14-3224 (Apr. 2, 2015) (for failure to file the record). 2 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

court an $80,000 garnishment order on a nonexistent judgment; and a defendant

was forced to file a motion to dismiss–multiple times–although there was never

any record of a complaint being filed which named it as a defendant.

¶5 In our first Rule 23 order, dated December 20, 2013, 4 we summarized the

case as follows:

"Plaintiff Larry Oruta filed a series of pro se complaints, that were

completely unintelligible, against defendants B.E.W.,[5] Continental Air

Transport, Inc., Budget Avis (Budget) and other parties seeking to

enforce a judgment that never existed. Defendant Budget, who is the

only party before this court on appeal, responded to each complaint with

a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-615 of the Illinois Code of Civil

Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2010)). Oruta filed a garnishment

against a bank claiming he obtained a judgment against Continental on a

workers compensation case, and after service of process, filed a motion

for a turn over of funds. The trial court granted the motion, ordering the

bank to turn over $80,000 to Oruta in satisfaction of judgment. Actually, 4 The circuit court number was No. 11 L 8803, which is the same circuit court number in the case at bar. There is no Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission case number listed in the December 20, 2013, Rule 23 order. 5 Defendant B.E.W. is referred to in court captions and orders sometimes by its initials and sometimes by its full name, Bobby E. Wright Comprehensive Behavioral Health Center. For consistency's sake, we will refer to this defendant as "B.E.W." unless we are providing an exact quote. 3 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

the record on appeal indicates that Oruta received no award from the

workers compensation case, had no judgment, and filled out the

garnishment forms claiming that there was a judgment. The trial court

subsequently vacated its turn over order, finding that no judgment

existed, and ordered that Oruta return any money he may have received.

Oruta appealed the order vacating the turn over order only and, for the

following reasons, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. After

Oruta filed his notice of appeal, Budget, who was apparently not a party

to the workers compensation case, prevailed on its motion to dismiss."

Oruta 1,

, ¶ 2.

¶6 In our 2013 order, we observed that plaintiff had filed his notice of

appeal before the trial court's January 14, 2013, order dismissing the case with

prejudice. Thus, his appeal of the turnover order was an appeal of a nonfinal

order, and we lacked jurisdiction to review it for the reasons explained in our

Rule 23 order, which we will not repeat here. Oruta 1,

, ¶ 21. We therefore dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

¶7 As for the odd assortment of named defendants, the record reveals that

plaintiff initially made claims of overcharges on a rental car against defendant

Budget and then sought to add, to the same case, unrelated claims relating to

worker's compensation against defendants B.E.W. and Continental.

4 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

¶8 II. Second Appeal

¶9 Next, plaintiff appealed from an order finding him in civil contempt and

ordering him into the sheriff's custody for not obeying an earlier order to return

the $80,000 that he improperly obtained by garnishment upon a nonexistent

judgment. Oruta 2,

, ¶ 2. Plaintiff was to stay in

the county jail until he purged himself from the contempt finding by returning

the wrongfully obtained funds. On May 20, 2013, plaintiff appealed, even

though the trial court had already ordered his immediate release from custody

on April 24, 2013. We described the underlying facts in that case as follows:

"Plaintiff's claims against B.E.W. and Continental concern in relevant

part workers' compensation claims upon which the Commission issued

decisions on June 20, 2012.

In case 04WC30529, with B.E.W. as the employee-respondent, the

Commission denied plaintiff benefits upon a finding that he failed to

prove a causal connection between his present health and his work-

related accident of September 3, 2003. On June 28, 2012, the court in the

instant case (then pending against Budget, Chase and Sedgwick) granted

plaintiff leave to add B.E.W. as a defendant. On July 18, plaintiff

obtained a summons in workers' compensation review, in case

04WC30529; however, while its caption names the Commission, B.E.W.,

5 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

and Continental as defendants, the list of parties to be summoned, and

plaintiff's certificate of mailing, do not list the Commission as a served

party. See 820 ILCS 305/19(f)(1) (West 2012) (judicial review of

Commission decision must be commenced within 20 days of party's

notice of decision). Plaintiff also filed a complaint naming the same

defendants and seeking review of the Commission's decision and

purporting to raise claims of misrepresentation and fraud, negligence,

emotional distress, and retaliatory discharge. The complaint alleged that

the Commission's decision was erroneous but merely named the other

claims without any further allegation.

In case 06WC4948, with Continental as the employer-respondent, the

Commission granted plaintiff benefits of $383.76 per week for 37.5

weeks of temporary total incapacity for work, plus certain specified

medical expenses and interest, resulting from an accident on January 3,

2006. In September 2012, upon plaintiff's motion, the court transferred

the workers' compensation case pursuant to its order of June 28, 2012.

That same month, plaintiff obtained a summons in workers'

compensation review, in cases 04WC30529 and 06WC4948, naming the

Commission, B.E.W., and Continental as defendants; again, plaintiff's

certificate of mailing did not include the Commission.

6 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

As noted in our prior order, the trial court found on December 4,

2012, that Budget was the only properly served and represented

defendant and that plaintiff had no default or monetary judgment against

any defendant, and the court ordered that default against B.E.W. [sic]

was denied, that any previous order requiring the turnover of funds to

plaintiff was vacated as plaintiff had not won any monetary judgment,

and that plaintiff had until December 7, 2012, to return any funds

erroneously released to him. Plaintiff appealed this order, which we

found to be non-final as it did not terminate any litigation against any

party.

On December 10, 2012, the court ordered that plaintiff appear on

December 13 and show cause why he should not be held in civil

contempt for not returning funds by December 7 as ordered on December

4. The order noted that plaintiff was notified in person on December 4

that failure to obey that day's order would result in a proceeding for civil

contempt. On December 13, 2012, the court found plaintiff in contempt

and ordered the sheriff to arrest and incarcerate him until he purged his

contempt by returning $80,000 to Fifth Third Bank. The order recited

that plaintiff made misrepresentations that resulted in a judgment of

7 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

$80,000 against Continental and thus an $80,000 garnishment and

turnover order against Fifth Third Bank.

In December 2012, B.E.W. appeared, and in January 2013 filed a

motion to dismiss claiming a limitations defense: that plaintiff did not sue

B.E.W. for his 2003 discharge until 2012. On January 14, 2013, the

court granted with prejudice both Budget's pending motion to dismiss on

all claims and B.E.W.'s motion to dismiss on all claims. The court also

set a status hearing 'for any remaining issues to the extent there are any

such issues.' The order did not include a finding there is no just reason

for delaying appeal. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(a) (eff. Feb. 26, 2010).

On April 4, 2013, the court found that plaintiff continued to be in civil

contempt for not complying with the December 4 order and reiterated

that he would remain in the sheriff's custody until he paid $80,000.

However, on April 24, 2013, the court ordered plaintiff's immediate

release from the sheriff's custody.

Plaintiff filed the instant notice of appeal on May 20, 2013, seeking to

appeal the orders of April 4 and 24, 2013.” Oruta 2,

, ¶¶ 3- 10.

¶ 10 In our order in

, we observed that, while an order imposing a

penalty for civil contempt is generally appealable, plaintiff waited until May 20,

8 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

2013, to file his notice of appeal, and "May 20 is well over 30 days after April

4." Oruta 2,

, ¶ 12 (citing Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(a) (eff.

June 4, 2008)). In addition, plaintiff's incarceration for contempt was terminated

by one of the orders being appealed. Oruta 2,

, ¶

12. Thus, we once again dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

¶ 11 III. Third Appeal

¶ 12 After the contempt proceedings were terminated, plaintiff moved to

reinstate the garnishment proceedings, claiming that he had been granted a final

judgment. Oruta 3,

, ¶ 5. He claimed that the trial

court had reopened the proceedings, and he submitted in support a purported

order that the trial court subsequently found had never been entered. Oruta 3,

, ¶ 6. Plaintiff then appealed the trial court's order

which found that the purported order had never been entered. Oruta 3,

, ¶ 6.

¶ 13 We described the facts giving rise to his third appeal as follows:

"In November 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to reinstate his citation

and garnishment proceedings, claiming that he was granted a final

judgment in January 2012. On December 3, 2013, plaintiff obtained a

citation to discover assets reciting that he had a January 2012 judgment

9 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

*** and that the judgment now amounted to $103,000. However, the

court vacated the citation that same day.

Later in December 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to show cause ***

claiming that the court reopened citation proceedings on November 22,

2013. Attached to the motion was a near-illegible document purporting

to be a court order. On December 16, 2013, the court struck the 'alleged

order' of November 22, 2013, as 'having never been entered by this court.'

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on December 19, 2013, from the

December 16 order." Oruta 3,

, ¶¶ 5-6.

¶ 14 We once again dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding: "Plaintiff is

not appealing from a final order—an order making a final disposition of any

claim against any party—and we accordingly dismiss this appeal." Oruta 3,

, ¶ 7.

¶ 15 IV. Fourth and Instant Appeals

¶ 16 On September 18, 2014, the trial court entered an order in this same case,

with the same circuit court number (No. 11 L 8803), stating: "This matter

coming on plaintiff's emergency motion to refund his alleged Illinois Workers

Compensation Commission bond: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiff's

motion is denied the court having no jurisdiction." The bond appears to refer to

a bond described two years earlier in a decision by the Illinois Workers'

10 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

Compensation Commission which stated that, if defendant Continental Airport

Express wanted to appeal the decision to the circuit court, it would have to

obtain a bond in the sum of $14,500. Oruta v. BEW, No. 12 IW CC 0636 (IL

WCC, June 20, 2012).

¶ 17 On October 22, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the September

18 order 6 and, on April 2, 2015, this court dismissed this appeal for lack of

prosecution, specifically, for failure to file a record on appeal, which had been

due almost three months earlier on January 5, 2015. Instead of seeking an

extension of time with this court to file the record on appeal, plaintiff began

filing motions in the trial court asking the lower court to "revisit" this same

bond—apparently so he could appeal again.

¶ 18 On August 21, 2015, plaintiff moved the trial court "to revisit prior

motion filed and presented in court in [sic] October 20th 2014. But the trial

court requested for proof of bond granted by Cook County court pertaining to

ILWC 305(19g) filed and granted through Illinois Secretary [of] State on 8-27-

12. Therefore motion to show cause on part of bond."

¶ 19 Section 19(g) of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act (820 ILCS

305/19(g) (West 2012)) provides that "either party may present a certified copy 6 The notice of appeal also states that plaintiff is appealing an order dated October 15, 2014. However, this court cannot locate an October 15, 2014, order in the appellate record.

11 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

of the award *** when the same has become final *** for the payment of

compensation *** to the Circuit Court." 7 Plaintiff appears to be moving for

release of the bond put up by his employer to satisfy a judgment. However, the

record before us shows that a bond was placed on August 27, 2012, but there is

no evidence in the record as to whether this bond still exists; and plaintiff

provides us no reasons or evidence that he would be entitled to the proceeds of

the bond; and the record on appeal does not provide any reasons or evidence

that plaintiff would be entitled to the proceeds of the bond.

¶ 20 On August 21, 2015, plaintiff also moved the trial court for "return of

bond," stating that it was "used as collateral and ILWC 305(19g) award granted

by the ILWC Commission and Cook County on 6-20-12 and 8-2—12 by [trial

judge]. Also on matters coming to be heard on 8-21-15 def. Hartford ins. c/o

Sedgwick asked to appear at Room 2005 at 10:30 a.m. court having ruled on 8-

21-15."

¶ 21 On August 28, 2015, plaintiff moved for "default judgment," stating:

"Plaintiff asserts that def. B.E.W. and Continental were transferred from ILWC

[Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission] jurisdiction to Cook County

judicial [circuit court] on 8-8-12 and 9-4-12 & court having jurisdiction entered 7 Section 19(g) further provides: "Judgment shall not be entered until 15 days' notice of the time and place of the application for the entry of judgment shall be served upon the employer by filing such notice with the Commission[.]" 820 ILCS 305/19(g) (West 2012). 12 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

orders by [judge's name]. But clerk's office failed to enter transfer (summons &

complaint) of service on 10-17-12 against B.E.W." Plaintiff further stated:

"Note: on 11-22-13 order was entered to clarify missing complaint & summons

thus default be entered against B.E.W."

¶ 22 On September 3, 2015, plaintiff moved again for default judgment,

stating: "Under ILCWC 305 19 (g)(1)[8] court having jurisdiction in a transfer

order entered on 8-8-12 and 9-4-12 by [trial court]. Also order to amend both

defendants B.E.W. on 6-28-12 by [trial court] and Continental on 5-9-12.

B.E.W. secured on 10-17-12. But clerk's office misfiled Service of Summons

and Complaint. But order for clarification made 11-22-13." Plaintiff further

stated: "Note [trial judge] allowed missing Complaint and Summons entered on

11-22-13 open court. For motion filed 8-28-15 for 9-3-15."

¶ 23 On September 22, 2015, plaintiff filed another notice of appeal, which

stated that he was appealing an order issued by the trial court also on September

22, 2015. That appeal was assigned No. 1-15-2735. On September 29, 2015,

plaintiff filed a second notice of appeal, listing the same parties, which also

stated that the order being appealed was the September 22, 2015, order. That

appeal was assigned No. 1-15-2790. 8 The relevant portions of Section 19(g) of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/19(g) (West 2012)) are quoted above in the text. There is no subsection (1) in section 19(g). However, if plaintiff meant section 19(f)(1), that section is quoted in relevant part in the analysis below. 13 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

¶ 24 The September 22 order states in full:

"1. Matters coming to the Court on motion to grant plaintiff Larry

Oruta Rule 305 (pg g) award and pursuant [(]see 305(a)[)] under 710

ILCS 5-18 is denied on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

2. Matter to default defendant B.E.W. on grounds of service on 10-17-

12 is also denied on jurisdictional grounds."

¶ 25 On March 24, 2016, this court allowed plaintiff's motion to consolidate the

two appeals; and on October 27, 2016, this court ordered that the two

consolidated cases would be taken for consideration on the record and the

appellant's brief only.

¶ 26 ANALYSIS

¶ 27 As we observed above, this court has dismissed three prior appeals by

plaintiff in this same case for lack of jurisdiction. Oruta v. B.E.W.,

(Dec. 5, 2014) (Oruta 1); Oruta v. B.E.W.,

(Aug. 1, 2014) (Oruta 2); Oruta v. B.E.W.,

(Dec. 20, 2013) (Oruta 3). For the following reasons, this opinion

will mark our fourth dismissal of an appeal by the same litigant in the same case

for lack of jurisdiction.

14 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

¶ 28 I. No Table of Contents

¶ 29 Plaintiff's brief fails to include a table of contents to the record on appeal.

We can dismiss the appeal on this basis alone.

¶ 30 When litigants appear pro se, their status does not relieve them of their

burden of complying with the court's rules. Epstein v. Galuska,

(2005); see also Holzrichter v. Yorath,

("In Illinois, parties choosing to represent themselves without a lawyer must

comply with the same rules."). "Where an appellant's brief fails to comply with

supreme court rules, this court has the inherent authority to dismiss the appeal."

Epstein,

(citing In re Marriage of Gallagher,

(1993)). "While this court is not bound to enforce strict,

technical compliance with the rules where, despite minor inadequacies in an

appellate brief, the basis for an appeal is fairly clear [citation], a party's failure

to comply with basic rules is grounds for disregarding his or her arguments on

appeal." Epstein,

.

¶ 31 Under Supreme Court Rule 342(a), an appellant's brief must include, in

"an appendix, *** a complete table of contents, with page references, of the

record on appeal." Ill. S. Ct. R. 342(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2005). Plaintiff's appellate

brief does not contain a complete table of contents with page references to the

record. It contains a page entitled "Docketing order," which contains only a

15 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

partial list of some documents with cites to the record. The brief also contains a

page entitled "Appendix" with a list of 16 documents with apparent page

numbers, from 1 to 17, that do not correspond to either the pages in the record

or the documents in the appendix.

¶ 32 This appendix also includes documents that are not in the appellate

record, and thus must be disregarded. Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule

342(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2005), the appendix must contain "pleadings or other

materials from the record which are the basis of the appeal." However, a party

may generally not rely on matters outside the record to support its position on

appeal. Kenner v. City of Herrin,

(2009). Thus, if the

materials are not taken from the record, they may not generally be placed before

the appellate court in an appendix and will be disregarded. Hubeny v. Chairse,

(1999). See also Kenner,

(when a

party disregards this rule, a reviewing court may strike the brief or "simply

disregard the inappropriate material").

¶ 33 Supreme court rules are not advisory suggestions, but rules to be

followed. In re Marriage of Hluska,

; In re

Estate of Michalak,

(2010). Since plaintiff's appellate

brief fails to follow the provisions set forth in Supreme Court Rule 342(a), we

may, within our discretion, dismiss his appeal for failure to do so. Hluska, 2011

16 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

IL App (1st) 092636, ¶ 57; Fender v. Town of Cicero,

(2004) (citing Collier v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.,

(1993)).

¶ 34 II. No Cites to Record

¶ 35 In addition, the argument section of plaintiff's appellate brief fails to

comply with the provisions of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. Jan.

1, 2016), which require "references to the volume and pages of the record on

appeal so that we are able to assess whether the facts which [the appellant]

presents are accurate and a fair portrayal of the events in this case." Hluska,

, ¶ 58 (discussing the requirements of Rule 341(h(7)).

Specifically, Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) requires the "Argument" section of

an appellant's brief to cite "the pages of the record relied on." Ill. S. Ct. R.

341(h)(7) (eff. Jan. 1, 2016). Plaintiff's argument section does not contain one

citation to the volume or page numbers of the record.

¶ 36 In Epstein, after first remarking on the pro se litigants' extensive

litigation experience, this court dismissed their appeal for failure to comply

with supreme court rules. Epstein,

. In Epstein, we used

language that is equally applicable to the case before us: "[Appellants] appear

to take this court for fools and seem to labor under the presumption that we

17 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

would take their appeal ignorant of their extensive, prolific,[9] and sometimes

ludicrous attempts to elude and forestall judgments *** and the enforcement

thereof. *** We refuse to further enable this pathology[.] In short, we will not

abide [their] attempt to perpetuate litigation that concluded long ago, and

pursuant to our discretion to dismiss an appeal for violations of supreme court

rules [citation], we dismiss this appeal." Epstein,

.

¶ 37 III. Jurisdiction

¶ 38 On September 18, 2014, the trial court in the instant case entered an order

finding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain a motion by plaintiff concerning

an alleged Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission bond. Plaintiff

appealed this order, but his failure to file the record for three months led to the

dismissal of this appeal.

¶ 39 In an attempt to keep this issue alive, plaintiff filed more motions with

the trial court which were also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

¶ 40 In his appellate brief, plaintiff lists as one of the "issues presented for

review": "Did [C]ook [C]ounty have jurisdiction to deny appellant Statutory

Bond entered on 6-20-12 ***?" However, he cites no page in the appellate

9 Plaintiff has filed not only numerous appeals in this case in the last few years, but also appeals in other unrelated cases. E.g., Oruta v. BEK,

, ¶¶ 1, 6 (another appeal, which consolidated two separate circuit court cases, was also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction). 18 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

record as proof that the bond still exists. The trial court must not have viewed

proof either because, in its September 18, 2014, order, it referred to "his alleged

Illinois Workers Compensation Commission bond." (Emphasis added.) The

June 20, 2012, decision by the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission

stated only that, if defendant Continental Airport Express wanted to appeal the

decision to the circuit court, it would have to obtain a bond in the sum of

$14,500. Oruta v. BEW, No. 12 IW CC 0636 (IL WCC, June 20, 2012). See

820 ILCS 305/19(f)(2) (West 2012) (describing the bond procedure for review).

The record contains evidence of a bond taken out on August 27, 2012, but there

is no evidence whether the bond still exists.

¶ 41 The appellate record includes a letter by plaintiff's attorney, dated August

25, 2015, which states that the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission

entered an award in plaintiff's favor against Continental and that Continental

paid the award. If this letter—submitted by plaintiff—is correct, and the award

was paid, then we are not clear what claim plaintiff would have against the

bond, even if it still existed.

¶ 42 In addition, plaintiff's attorney stated in this August 20, 2015, letter that

plaintiff filed an appeal pro se of the Commission's decision. To the extent that

plaintiff is appealing the decision or actions of Illinois Workers' Compensation

Commission, we have no more jurisdiction than the original trial court did.

19 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

"Although the circuit courts are courts of general jurisdiction, that presumption

does not apply in workers' compensation proceedings where the court exercises

special statutory jurisdiction." Rojas v. Illinois Workers' Compensation

Comm'n,

(2010) (citing Kavonius v. Industrial

Comm'n,

(2000)); Residential Carpentry, Inc. v.

Kennedy,

(2007). "In an appeal from a decision of the

Commission, the circuit court obtains subject matter jurisdiction only if the

appellant complies with the statutorily mandated procedures set forth in the

Act." Rojas,

(citing Esquivel v. Illinois Workers'

Compensation Comm'n,

(2010)); Residential

Carpentry,

.

¶ 43 Section 19(f) of the Workers' Compensation Act provides, in relevant

part:

"The decision of the Commission *** shall, in the absence of fraud,

be conclusive unless reviewed as in this paragraph hereinafter provided.

***

(1) *** [T]he Circuit Court *** shall by summons to the Commission

have power to review all questions of law and fact presented by such

record.

20 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

A proceeding for review shall be commenced within 20 days of the

receipt of notice of the decision of the Commission. *** [S]ervice shall

be made upon the Commission and other parties in interest by mailing

notices of the commencement of the proceedings[.] ***

The Commission shall not be required to certify the record of their

proceedings to the Circuit Court, unless the party commencing the

proceeding for review in the Circuit Court [shall pay the proper amount

for the cost of the preparation of the record].

In its decision on review the Commission shall determine *** the

probable cost of the record to be filed as part of the summons in that case

and no request for a summons may be filed and no summons shall issue

unless the party seeking to review the decision of the Commission shall

exhibit to the clerk of the Circuit Court proof of payment by filing a

receipt showing payment or an affidavit of the attorney setting forth that

payment has been made of the sums so determined ***." 820 ILCS

305/19(f) (West 2012).

¶ 44 In the case at bar, the decision of the Commission, dated June 20, 2012,

determined that the cost of the record was $35. However, plaintiff has not cited

to a page in the record before us, nor can we find one, which shows that he

submitted to the clerk of the circuit court proof of his payment of this $35

21 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

within 20 days of his receipt of the June 20, 2012, decision. " '[I]n order to

perfect jurisdiction in the circuit court, the appellant must not only file a written

request for summons within 20 days after receiving the Commission's decision,

but he or she must also exhibit to the clerk of the circuit court within the same

time frame either a receipt showing payment of the probable cost of the record

on appeal or an affidavit of an attorney setting forth that such payment has been

made to the Commission.' " Rojas,

(quoting Esquivel,

). 10 In addition, as we observed in a prior order,

"plaintiff's certificate of mailing did not include the Commission." Oruta 2,

, ¶ 5; 820 ILCS 305/19(f) (West 2012) ("service

shall be made upon the Commission and other parties in interest by mailing

notices of the commencement of the proceedings").

¶ 45 In plaintiff's jurisdictional statement in his appellate brief, plaintiff states

that "[t]he appellate court has judicial authority to reverse all rulings of the

lower court as a matter of law *** under ILWC 303(19)g." It is not so simple.

If plaintiff had a problem with an action taken by the Illinois Workers'

10 Although plaintiff had been granted permission on August 23, 2011, to proceed as an indigent person in the instant case when it was still solely against Budget, plaintiff does not point to a page in the record where he later applied for and received a waiver of this $35 fee in order to appeal the Commission's decision in a separate appeal. 22 Nos. 1-15-2735, 1-15-2790 (cons.)

Compensation Commission or related to its decision, then he had to follow the

statutory requirements necessary to appeal to the circuit court. Plaintiff does

not cite evidence in the record that he did so. Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction.

¶ 46 CONCLUSION

¶ 47 For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction

and for failure to abide by supreme court rules.

¶ 48 Appeal dismissed.

¶ 49 JUSTICE LAMPKIN, specially concurring.

¶ 50 I specially concur only in the result reached by the majority. This case,

however, does not qualify for disposition by opinion because it does not

establish a new rule of law, does not modify, explain or criticize an existing rule

of law, and does not resolve, create or avoid an apparent conflict of authority

within the appellate court. Ill. S. Ct. R. 23(a) (eff. July 1, 2011).

23