Document Ne10dwMvnRq6NE9yb3DB6MEzE

Ro b e r t L. Mu e l l e r Ro b e r t E. Da v l in De n n is S. O'Br ie n L. Ro b e r t Mu e l l e r Ke v in J. Da v l in C.Al l e n Mu e l l e r Th o ma s Ma r k Sc h mid t LIVINGSTONE, MUELLER, O'BRIEN & DAVLIN, P.C. Attorneys at Law 620 Ea s t Ed w a r d s St r e e t Po s t Of f ic e Bo x 335 Sp r in g f ie l d , Il l in o is 62705 EMPLOYEE 8L?tif*L/ Liv in g s t o n e , Mu e l l e r , j mn Dav u n Liv in g s t o n e , Mu e l l e r , Gu n n in g , O'Br ie n & Da v l in , P.C. Te l e ph o n e (217) 525-1070 January 20, 1989 C. A. Liv in g s t o n e 1896-1982 V.Le s l ie Dr a k e 1895-1971 Ms. Christine Nelson Senior Claims Administrator Self-Insurers Service, Inc. Ill East Wacker Drive P Chicago, Illinois 60601 yW H In re: , Widow of ____________ U Sherwin Williams ~' < Your File No. L9935-1-80 P Date of Incident: April 15, 1981 Deceased vs. Dear Ms. Nelson: The argument on the appeal of the widow, from the decision of the Circuit Court, Montgomery County, Illinois proceeded before the Appellate Court of Illinois, Industrial Commission Division, on the morning of December 14, 1988. At that point, the Court took the case under advisement. We now have the decision of the Appellate Court which reverses that of the Circuit Court. The Appellate Court has therefore reaffirmed the decision of the Industrial Commis sion of Illinois finding the death of Melvin Beeler compen sable. I am submitting a copy of the decision and opinion. There are two avenues open to request additional considera tion. One is a Petition for Rehearing to the same Appellate Court, - the other, a Petition for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court. By Supreme Court Rule, the latter is granted only as a matter of sound judicial discretion for one of four reasons: the general importance of the question presented; existence of conflict between the decision and a decision of the Supreme Court, or another division of the Appellate Court; need for the exercise of the Supreme Court's supervisory authority; and, the final or interlocu tory character of the judgment sought to be reviewed. No Petition for Leave to Appeal from the Industrial Commission division can be filed unless at least one judge from that panel issues a statement that the case involves a substan tial question warranting the Supreme Court's attention. In view of the fact that the decision of this Appellate N40340 0007-SWP-005801377 r edac t ed Ffo'^E BEKfiTS Coart was unanimous, I perceive no hope that we would bej^og allowed back in before the Appellate Court, nor indeed ~ certified to the Supreme Court- The decision simply sup ports the Industrial Commission decision, which so many of the Appellate Court decisions do. The Industrial Commission, they rule, can draw inferences from the evidence, and can reasonably rely upon the treating physician's opinion, in this case, rejecting that of our pulmonary expert. The Appellate Court finds therefore that the decision of the Industrial Commision is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. I do not recommend any further proceedings, which as I have indicated would not bear fruit. I think then we should get on with either attempting to reach a settlement agreement with the widow, or pay her the compensation accrued to date, and then begin regular payments at the weekly rate found by the Industrial Commission ($156.54). Annual compensation is therefore $8,140.08. April 15, 1989 will be the 8th anniversary of the death of On that date the widow would have accrued benefits of $65,120.64. The widow is now 65 years of age and has an approximate life expectancy of 18 years. Benefits for that period of time capitalized at 8% has a present value based upon 9.37 years. One possibility is her living beyond expectancy. The Workers' Compensation Act awards the surviving spouse benefits for 20 years, or $250,000.00, whichever is the greater. I ask that you or Mr. Colangeio, or both, call me to discuss this. My recommendation is that we approach the attorney for Helen Beeler for a settlement figure. We obviously are not required to settle this case if we decide to pay the accrued compensation, then the benefits regularly at the rate above mentioned. Very truly yours. Robert L. Mueller RLM: ph cc: Mr. Tony Colangeio Sherwin Williams Company 101 Prospect Avenue, N.W. Cleveland, Ohio 44115 0007-SWP-005801378 CONFIDENTIAL