Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 203

Crosier v. State

Court of Claims of Illinois

Decided May 6, 1987

Court of Claims of Illinois · decided 1987-05-06

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1993

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1987-05-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Montana, C.J.

¶2This cause is before the Court on Respondent’s motion to dismiss and Respondent’s second motion to dismiss. The Respondent contends in its motions that this claim should be dismissed because the Claimant failed to file a personal injury notice within one year as required by section 22 — 1 of the Court of Claims Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.22 — 1), and a proper claim within two years after the cause of action accrued as required by section 22 of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.22), because a complete complaint had not been filed which had a timely, previously filed, personal injury notice attached.

¶3There is no indication in the record that the Claimant has ever filed a personal injury notice. However, the Claimant did file a complaint on February 3, 1986. In said complaint the Claimant asserts he suffered his injuries on February 14, 1985, so his complaint was filed within one year after his cause of action allegedly accrued. This Court has held that filing of a complaint within the time period for filing the notice is sufficient compliance with the notice requirements of section 22— 1 of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.22 — 1). (Johnson v. State, No. 87-CC-0105, opinion filed March 26,1987.) Since the filing of a complaint within one year that a cause of action accrues satisfies the personal injury notice requirement even though a notice has not been filed, it follows that the filing of the same complaint would satisfy the two-year statute of limitations requirement of section 22 of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.22), even though the complaint filed did not have a timely, previously filed, personal injury notice attached.

¶4Based on the foregoing, we find that the Claimant has complied with the notice requirement of section 22 — 1 of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.22 — 1) and the limitations requirements of section 22 of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.22). We therefore hereby order that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be, and is, hereby denied.

¶5ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

¶6Montana, C.J.

¶7Pursuant to Claimant’s motion, this claim is dismissed with prejudice.

/40/illctcl/203 · .json · Public domain