text:
    (No. 5202
    Peter Berkin, Administrator of the Estate of Elena Berkin, also known as Joan Ashley, Deceased, and Sara Berkin, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 13, 1972.

    Miller and Koretzky, Attorney for Claimants.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler and Bradley M. Glass, Assistant Attorneys General, for Respondent.
   Holderman, J.

A Complaint was filed on December 3,1964, by Peter Berkin, Administrator of the Estate of Elena Berkin, also known as Joan Ashley, deceased, and Sara Berkin.

The Complaint alleges that Sara Berkin is the owner and/or beneficiary of the claims set forth herein as the mother of Elena Berkin, deceased, arising out of the wrongful death of her said daughter on December 7,1962.

The deceased was murdered on December 7,1962, by one Joseph Csanyi.

Joseph Csanyi, former Hungarian Revolution fighter, was admitted to the United States in 1956. He was committed to the Chicago State Hospital on March 17, 1962, by the County Court of Cook County as a schizophrenic of a paranoid type, suffering from hallucinations and delusions of being threatened with death.

On April 10, 1962, the Chicago State Hospital discharged said patient. On July 26, 1962, Joseph Csanyi was again committed to the Chicago State Hospital by the County Court of Cook County.

On November 24, 1962, Joseph Csanyi was conditionally discharged to his own custody by the Chicago State Hospital.

Prior to his first commitment, said Joseph Csanyi worked as a watchmaker for the firm of Schierer and Popp Jewelers. After his first discharge from the hospital, he returned to his former employers on a full-time basis. After his second or conditional discharge, he returned to this employment first on a part-time basis and later on a full-time basis.

When he first worked for the jewelry firm, said Joseph Csanyi returned to the hospital at night but later on his own request, he was allowed to leave the hospital and consequently, found living quarters in the same apartment building as the deceased.

It appears that said Joseph Csanyi was a total stranger to Elena Berkin, though they did live in the same apartment building.

It also appears that said Joseph Csanyi was confined to a mental hospital in the State of Indiana for a short period of time, the exact period of confinement not being stated in the record.

The record discloses that this individual lived alone, had few friends, one of them being a nurse at the Chicago State Hospital, who spoke Hungarian, and also a doctor.

His work as a watchmaker, according to the record, was excellent and he was a good employee.

It appears that the reason for a condition rather than an absolute discharge was the fact that he had been previously hospitalized and there was a clinical indication that he have available the possibility of re-entering the hospital without any commitment procedures and also for the purpose of maintaining contact with the patient to determine if he had a relapse serious enough to require hospitalization and for the purpose of supervising medication.

It appears that the treatment given him at the hospital consisted of drugs and an attempt to get him to join “Thresholds” which is a group for the purpose of furnishing social therapy to individuals such as Joseph Csanyi. He did not join “Thresholds.”

The psychiatrist in charge of this individual testified that the relapse rate is rather high among schizophrenics and that aftercare is important.

The paranoid schizophrenic feels that others are against him and reacts in a bizarre manner and is unpredictable.

Joseph Csanyi would have periods of despondency and expressed the belief that people were following him and talking about him. He was also under the delusion that the Communists were after him.

There is considerable evidence to the fact that this individual would withdraw unto himself and have spells of crying but the record is completely silent as to any acts of violence of any kind or character. There is not any record of any assaultive behavior after his arrival in this country.

On the 2nd or 3rd of December, 1962, his employer noticed that he seemed more morose than before. At one time he ordered a hamburger which he sat and stared at for a long period of time.

One of his employers, Mr. Schierer, testified that on the 2nd or 3rd of December, 1962, he called a Mr. Jensen, one of the personnel of the Chicago State Hospital, and informed him that Joseph Csanyi seemed to be much worse than he had been.

Mr. Schierer stated that prior to the time he called Mr. Jensen, he would walk back to where Joseph Csanyi was working and would find him in tears, and that after he talked to him for awhile, he would be all right and would continue with his work.

The evidence shows that part of the treatment for Joseph Csanyi had been the use of certain drugs which, according to the doctor, would quiet the patient down and relieve him of his delusions and hallucinations but the record does not disclose whether any of this medicine was administered shortly before or prior to the incident which caused the death of Elena Berkin.

The evidence is to the effect that drug therapy, primarily the use of tranquilizers, was the one favored and used by the doctors of this particular patient.

The evidence also discloses that after the call to the hospital, the condition of J oseph Csanyi, on the first part of December, was not improved. This matter was discussed by the staff of the hospital and the staff recommended that since the patient’s work appeared not to be affected and since there had been no history of assaultive behavior, the vocational rehabilitation worker should continue to remain in contact with the employer in the next few days to note any further regression.

It appears that Joseph Csanyi was not visited by any of the hospital staff and it is not known whether the patient had any antihallucinatory drugs after he left the hospital. There is evidence to the effect that these drugs, if taken, might have possibly prevented the incident in question.

It is the claimant’s position that any paranoid schizophrenic is potentially dangerous and that this fact was well known to the State and that because of this condition, Joseph Csanyi should not have been allowed liberties that resulted in the death of the deceased.

The question is whether or not the State, by virtue of the telephone call of December 5,1962, calling attention to the apparent change in the condition of the patient and the fact that little was done except a telephone call to the patient by the Hungarian-speaking nurse was sufficient notice to the respondent that something should be done seems to be the crux of the present case.

What is reasonable care, under the circumstances, seems to be the criterion adopted by the various Courts in past opinions in similar situations.

The degree of care owed by the State in operating mental institutions is gone into at considerable length in Volume 22, Court of Claims Reports, Page 722. Rule appears to be that the State has to exercise such care that individuals under its custody will not have the opportunity to inflict a foreseeable injury upon others.

This brings forth the question whether or not the act of December 7, 1962, was foreseeable by the State and, consequently, one that should have prompted the State to take action which might have prevented the tragedy.

As stated before, the individual in question did not have any record of any violence of any violent behavior. It is void of any violence of any kind or character and all that does appear is that this individual did have periods of retreat, crying, and hallucinations. There is no evidence of any impulsive actions of any kind or character and completely void of any criminal record.

Under the circumstances, therefore, we do not believe the State was negligent in this particular instance in not keeping this patient confined.

It is therefore the opinion of this Court that claimant is not entitled to an award.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam.

license: Public Domain

text:
    (No. 6071
    De Paul University, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 13, 1972.

    De Paul University, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6226
    Anesthesiology Associates of Elgin, S.C., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 13, 1972.

    Anesthesiology Associates of Elgin, S.C., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6539
    Martin Oil Service, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Secretary of State and Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 13, 1972.

    Martin Oil Service, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6644
    IBM Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 13, 1972.

    IBM Corporation, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6818
    Mason-Barron Laboratories, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 13, 1972.

    Mason-Barron Laboratories, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6819
    Mason-Barron Laboratories, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 13, 1972.

    Mason-Barron Laboratories, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6906
    Koehler Bindery, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 13, 1972.

    Koehler Bindery, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6936
    Mayfair Supply Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 13, 1972.

    Mayfair Supply Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6938
    Edward Hines Lumber Co., A Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Conservation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 13, 1972.

    Brodl, Daugherty and Giuliano, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6940
    The Western Union Telegraph Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Law Enforcement, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 13, 1972.

    Eckhart, McSwain, Hassell and Silliman, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 5948
    Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Various Agencies, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 15, 1972.

    Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6157
    Humble Oil & Refining Company, A Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Various Agencies, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 15, 1972.

    Giffin, Winning, Newkirk and Cohen, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6308
    Lawrence Jones, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 15, 1972.

    Lawrence Jones, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6929
    Beulah Ford Ray, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Public Aid, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 15, 1972.

    Hersch Y. Franks, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6946
    John R. Bateman, M.D., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 15, 1972.

    Dr. John R. Bateman, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6948
    D. Adolphus Rivers, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Illinois Fair Employment Practices Commission, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 15, 1972.

    D. Adolphus Rivers, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7011
    Edward G. Brodie, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Financial Institutions, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 15, 1972.

    Edward G. Brodie, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6211
    Armando Susmano, M.D., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 21, 1972.

    Dr. Armando Susmano, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6213
    Marvin S. Rosenberg, M.D., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 21, 1972.

    Dr. Marvin S. Rosenberg, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6812
    Kroch’s and Brentano’s, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 21, 1972.

    Kroch’s and Brentano’s, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6864
    Elbridge A. Fort, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 21, 1972.

      Kleiman, Cornfield and Feldman, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6708
    Marcos Oliva, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 26, 1972.

    Marcos Oliva, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6806
    Carr's, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Public Aid, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 26, 1972.

    Robert M. Grossman, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6949
    Robert F. Scott, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 26, 1972.

    Robert F. Scott, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6955
    Continental Oil Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 26, 1972.

    Continental Oil Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6957
    Continental Oil Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 26, 1972.

    Continental Oil Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6963
    Hopkins, Sutter, Owen, Mulroy and Davis, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Revenue, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 26, 1972.

    Hopkins, Sutter, Owen, Mulroy and Davis, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6984
    Zion Benton Hospital, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 26, 1972.

    Zion Benton Hospital, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6985
    Chicago Paper Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Legislative Investigating Commission, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 26, 1972.

      Chicago Paper Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6987
    Wayne Davenport and Kenneth Davenport, d/b/a Davenport Builders, A Partnership, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Department of General Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 26, 1972.

    Charles J. Gramlich, Attorney for Claimants.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6991
    Edward L. Jones, Robert Newell, John N. Jurgens, and Charles K. Dutch, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Cass County Educational Service Region, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 26, 1972.

    Leland Schnake, Attorney for Claimants.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6996
    Central Office Equipment Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Conservation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 26, 1972.

    Central Office Equipment Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7038
    Missouri Rolling Mill Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed December 26, 1972.

    Missouri Rolling Mill Corporation, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


author: Perlin, C.J.

text:
    (No. 6012
    Glick Prescription Pharmacy, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed January 9, 1972.

    Glick Prescription Pharmacy, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Perlin, C.J.


text:
    (No. 6132
    Laventhol, Krekstein, Horwath & Horwath, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed January 9, 1973.

    Laventhol, Krekstein, Horwath & Horwath, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6133
    Laventhol, Krekstein, Horwath & Horwath, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed January 9, 1973.

    Laventhol, Krekstein, Horwath & Horwath, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6212
    Joseph J. Muenster, M.D., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed January 9, 1973.

    Joseph J. Muenster, M.D., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6225
    J. P. Phillips, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Labor, Respondent.

      Opinion filed January 9, 1973.
    Angelo Ruggiero, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6380
    Central Plaza Hotel, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.
    Opinion filed January 9, 1973.

    Central Plaza Hotel, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Perlin, C.J.


text:
    (No. 6504
    Diana Ratkovich, A Minor by Her Father, John Ratkovich, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed January 9, 1973.

    John Ratkovich, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Edward L. S. Arkema, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6535
    Michigan Blvd. Garden Apartments, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Public Aid, Respondent.

      Opinion filed January 9, 1973.

    Michigan Blvd. Garden Apartments, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6606
    Charles Fisher, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Industrial Commission, Respondent.

      Opinion filed January 9, 1973.

    Sudak, Grubman, Rosenthal & Feldman, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6612
    Maryville Academy, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed January 9, 1973.

    M. I. McMahon, Jr., Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6761
    Loretto Hospital, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed January 9, 1973.

    Loretto Hospital, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6762
    Grand Spaulding Dodge, Inc., An Illinois Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of General Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed January 9, 1973.

    Ralph M. Bernstein, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6823
    Edna P. Kaye, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Labor, Respondent.

      Opinion filed January 9, 1973.

    Edna P. Kaye, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6849
    Fargo Beach Home, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed January 9, 1973.

    Jerome Garoon, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6850
    Fargo Beach Home, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed January 9, 1973.

    Jerome Gaboon, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6905
    Aero Ambulance Service, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed January 9, 1973.

    Aero Ambulance Service, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6907
    Cabrini-Green Community Market, Inc., d/b/a/ Jet Community Market, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Public Aid, Respondent.

      Opinion filed January 9, 1973.

    Cabrini-Green Community Market, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6924
    D. A. Manelli, M.D., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, respondent.

      Opinion filed January 9, 1973.

    D. A. Manelli, M.D., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6928
    Beulah Ray, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Public Aid, Respondent.

      Opinion filed January 9, 1973.

    Hersch Y. Franks, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7020
    Loyola University Hospital, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Public Aid, Respondent.

      Opinion filed January 9, 1973.

    Loyola University Hospital, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7024
    M. J. Kellner Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

      Opinion filed January 9, 1973.

    M. J. Kellner Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73-CC-7
    Kathryn D. Hawkins, Executor of the Will of Noel Hawkins, Deceased, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of General Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Haglund and Gretler, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6294
    Highland Park Hospital Foundation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Highland Park Hospital Foundation, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6530
    Approved Home, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Departments of Mental Health and Public Aid, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Kreger & Karton, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


author: Burks, J.

text:
    (No. 6568
    Bismarck Hotel, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Secretary of State, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

      Bismarck Hotel, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Burks, J.


text:
    (No. 6614
    Champaign County Mental Health Center, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Champaign County Mental Health Center, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6626
    College Advisory Program, The Junior League of Evanston, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    College Advisory Program, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6653
    James Yenerich, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.
    Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Edward M. Sullivan, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6718
    Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Secretary of State, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6720
    Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Agriculture, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6751
    Maryville Academy, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Maryville Academy, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6808
    Memorial Hospital of Springfield, Illinois, An Illinois Not-For-Profit Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Robert H. Stephen, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6836
    A. A. Palow, M.D., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    A. A. Palow, M.D., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6867
    Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    D. K. McIntosh, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6869
    Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Agriculture, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    D. K. McIntosh, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6871
    Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Illinois State Museum, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    D. K. McIntosh, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6872
    Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Secretary of State, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    D. K. McIntosh, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6873
    Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Conservation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.
    D. K. McIntosh, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6904
    Auto Parts Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Auto Parts Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6945
    Marsters Sign Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Marsters Sign Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6956
    Continental Oil Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Continental Oil Company, Claimant, pro se.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6961
    Charles Mortkowicz, Mortkowicz Nursing Home, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Charles Mortkowicz, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6979
    Texaco, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Agriculture, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Texaco, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6980
    Texaco, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Texaco, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6989
    Glick Medical and Surgical Supply Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Glick Medical and Surgical Supply Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6998
    Biuck Moomchi, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Biuck Moomchi, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7003
    Parke, Davis and Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Parke, Davis and Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7004
    Gulf Oil Company—U.S., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    P. K. Fitzwilliam, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7013
    Mobile Drilling Company, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

      Mobile Drilling Company, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7017
    Interroyal Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Interroyal Corporation, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7023
    Karoll’s, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Karolls, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7053
    Itek Business Products, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of General Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Itek Business Products, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7068
    Community General Hospital, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1973.

    Community General Hospital, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6198
    Bell and Howell Schools, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    Bell and Howell Schools, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6460
    Chas. Todd, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Various Agencies, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    Chas. Todd, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6591
    Dr. Donald R. Donica, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    Dr. Donald R. Donica, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6750
    Maryville Academy, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.
    Maryville Academy, Claimant, pro se.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6795
    Woodard Signs, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    Woodard Signs, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6859
    Stanley B. Wissner, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    Downs, Haddix & Schwab, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6878
    St. Francis Hospital, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    St. Francis Hospital, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6879
    St. Francis Hospital, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    St. Francis Hospital, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6899
    R. Herschel Manufacturing Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    R. Herschel Manufacturing Corporation, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6968
    Forrest H. Riordan, III, M.D., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    Dr. Forrest H. Riordan, III, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6972
    Central Office Equipment Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    Central Office Equipment Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6990
    The Augustana Nursery, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    The Augustana Nursery, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6993
    Licata Moving and Storage Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Public Aid, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    Warren Krinsky, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7007
    Gulf Oil Company—U.S., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Law Enforcement, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    Gulf Oil Company—U.S., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7008
    International Business Machines Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    International Business Machines Corporation, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7009
    International Business Machines Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    International Business Machines Corporation, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7010
    Community Hospital, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    Community Hospital, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7033
    William J. Hagstrom, Jr., M.D., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    Dr. William J. Hagstrom, Jr., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Perlin, C.J.


text:
    (No. 7039
    International Business Machines Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    International Business Machines Corporation, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7041
    Site Oil Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Public Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

      Site Oil Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7045
    Continental Oil Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    Continental Oil Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7050
    Central Office Equipment Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Law Enforcement, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    Central Office Equipment Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7064
    Gamma Photo Labs, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    Gamma Photo Labs, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7070
    United Laboratories, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of General Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    United Laboratories, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7071
    Richard L. Cooper, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Pollution Control Board, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 9, 1973.

    Richard L. Cooper, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 5422
    Harry B. Williams, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 15, 1973.

    Massey, Anderson, Gibson & Pearman, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Burks, J.

This is an action by Harry B. Williams to recover $16,051.26, which sum he claims is due him for loss of wages and retirement benefits because of alleged discriminatory practices of the Department of Public Works and Buildings of the State of Illinois while claimant was employed by said department.

Claimant charges that, in his case, respondent unjustly discriminated against him in his employment solely because of his age, a practice which the legislature subsequently declared to be against the public policy of this state (Ch. 48, Sec. 881, Ill.Rev.Stat, 1967, Approved July 26, 1967). We notice, incidentally, that the effective date of this Act was approximately 12 days before claimant’s employment was terminated by the respondent on August 7, 1967. We will allude to said statute later in this opinion.

Respondent admits all of the facts presented by the claimant but contends that the facts do not legally justify or support claimant’s cause of action. Respondent takes the position that the policy of its Division of Highways concerning retirement, on which this action is based, was a legal exercise of regulatory power; uniformly applied to all engineers of claimant’s age and class; and that claimant could have resigned if he did not choose to acquiesce in said policy and his financial loss resulting therefrom.

The undisputed facts are restated as follows:

The claimant, Harry B. Williams, is and has been since 1930, a registered professional engineer. His Illinois license is No. 62-5310. He was 57 years of age when he was employed by respondent’s Division of Highways as a Civil Engineer I in February, 1956. Claimant worked as an engineer in said division until his employment was terminated August 7,1967, because he was then 68 years of age. His termination because of his age was mandatory under a retirement policy adopted by the Division of Highways in 1963 and revised in 1967. The total period of claimant’s employment with the State was 11.48 years.

During the first 8 years of claimant’s employment, 1956-1964, he was advanced in position first to Civil Engineer II and then to Civil Engineer HI with attendant increases in salary applicable to his classification. It was the treatment claimant received during the last 3M years of his employment and after his retirement on which he bases this action, i.e., a reduction in salary from a high of $775 to $500 per month; a demotion in job classification without any change in duties or responsibilities; and his forced retirement at age 68 with reduced pension benefits.

At this point certain important facts in the record should be emphasized which indicate that claimant’s reduction in salary, his demotions in position title, and his forced retirement at age 68 were all based solely on age and on no other factors.

Claimant had been performing the duties of a Civil Engineer III during all of the last 5 years of his employment although his promotion to that title and salary, on the recommendation of his superiors, did not become effective until July 16, 1963. Claimant was then 64 years old. There was never any question as to claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform his duties. He was never reprimanded or disciplined in any way. In each of his Annual Service Rating Reports he was rated “Very Good” by his superiors. To receive such a rating an employee must have a numerical rating of from 3.5 to 4.4 on his report. On his last annual report (1966) claimant received a numerical rating of 4.2. A grade of 4.5 is classified as “Excellent” according to the schedule printed on the report which measures the quality and quantity of an employee’s work as well as his qualifications. We were impressed with the rating claimant received on all of his recent reports which were made a part of the record. We think it significant that claimant received the same high rating of 4.5 in each of the following: Dependability, punctuality and physical fitness. These appear to be high marks for an employee of any age.

We turn now to the policy of the Division of Highways on the matter of compulsory retirement which so adversely affected this claimant.

At the time claimant was employed in 1956, he was told by the District Engineer, Mr. Wydlick, that there was no compulsory retirement age for engineers and that he could work until he was 85 if he were able to do the job.

Some seven years later, the Division of Highways promulgated a compulsory retirement policy affecting the engineering staff, phasing out certain employees between the ages of 65-70, including the claimant. The said revised policy, effective July 1, 1963, provided in substance that employees over 65 years of age shall not receive a salary of more than $600 per month; that employees over 67 years of age shall not receive a salary of more than $500 per month and that employees 70 or more years of age must resign or be released from the Division of Highways.

Despite this revised policy, claimant, who was then 64 years old, was promoted to Civil Engineer III with a salary increase to $775 per month, effective July 16, 1963. This apparently deserved promotion lasted for 5 months. On March 1, 1964, pursuant to the above stated policy, claimant was reclassified as Civil Engineer II and his pay reduced to $600 per month. Then, 26 months later, on May 1,1966, claimant was reclassified as Civil Engineer I and his pay reduced to $500 per month. His salary remained at $500 per month until his forced retirement some 15 months later on August 7, 1967. During all of this time, claimant continued to perform the same regular and additional duties as he had done under the title of Civil Engineer III. The rate of pay for other Civil Engineer Ill’s who were performing the same duties as claimant, increased from $775 to $950 per month in this same period of time.

There was no change in claimant’s duties, hours of work, or vacation time in the period of July 1,1963, until his termination August 7, 1967, at age 68.

Claimant’s compulsory retirement at age 68 rather than age 70 was forced by a further revision in respondent’s policy, effective July 1, 1967.

We have carefully examined the documents in the record containing a copy of the regulations of the Division of Highways stating its personnel policy relating to retirement as revised July 1, 1963, and again July 1, 1967. The exact title of said regulations is stated as follows:

Personnel Policy Regarding Transfer or Movement of Employees of the Technical and Engineering Staff from Certain Supervisory and Management and Other Positions Because of Age and/or Reduced Capabilities

The pertinent provision in said regulations, as revised in 1967, which applied to the claimant, stated that “engineering employees over the age of 65 shall receive a salary not to exceed 70% of the salary received at age 65” and that “all employees of the engineering staff shall retire at the end of the first pay period following the date on which they reach the age of 68”.

The same regulations contained a provision that certain employees, in higher positions than the claimant, who were required to vacate these positions at age 65, “may be assigned to other duties commensurate with his capabilities at an appropriate classification level and a salary not to exceed 70% of the salary received at age 65”. This provision as to the “assignment to other duties” did not apply to the claimant. He was never assigned less duties and responsibilities. He was just paid a lower salary for performing the same duties after he reached the age of 65.

We hold that the aforesaid policy of the Division of Highways, as it was applied to the claimant, unjustly discriminated against him because of age.

It would have been different if claimant had been assigned duties that were less demanding on and after his 65th birthday; or if there had been any evidence that he was then less capable of performing the same duties that he had previously performed and continued to perform until he was terminated. The evidence was all the other way. Claimant continued to receive high praise from his superiors on his service rating reports. His only fault, apparently, was his age.

Just 12 days before claimant’s employment was terminated, the legislature emphatically declared that discrimination in employment because of age was against the public policy of this State. We refer to an Act approved July 26, 1967 (Ch. 48, Sec. 881, et seq., Ill. Rev. Stat., 1967) which reads in part as follows:

881. (a) The General Assembly declares that the practice of discriminating in employment against properly qualified persons because of their age is contrary to American principles of liberty and equality of opportunity, deprives the State of the fullest utilization of its capacities for production and endangers the general welfare.

(c) The right to employment otherwise lawful without discrimination because of age, where the reasonable demands of the position do not require such an age distinction, is hereby recognized as and declared to be a right of all of the people of the State which shall be protected as provided herein.

(d) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State to protect the right recognized and declared in paragraph (c) of this Section and to eliminate all such discrimination to the fullest extent permitted. This Act shall be construed to effectuate such policy.

The above statute explicitly condemns and forbids the kind of discrimination suffered by the claimant as stated in his complaint.

Respondent does not specifically contend that the above statute could have no retroactive application to the retirement policy of the Division of Highways adopted in 1963. Rather, respondent attempts to justify said policy under the following language of the same statute:

883. Nothing in this Act affects the retirement system of any employer where such system is not merely a subterfuge to evade the purpose of this Act; * * * Nor shall anything in this Act be construed as preventing the State or any political subdivision thereof or any other governmental agency from operating any program of compulsory retirement for its employees. (Ch. 48, Sec. 883, Ill.Rev.Stat.)

Respondent asks, “How can said retirement policy possibly be a subterfuge to evade the purpose of the Age Discrimination Act when the retirement policy was instituted several years prior to the enactment of the statute?” We believe the answer is obvious. The retirement policy was not a subterfuge. As applied to the claimant, but not to other employees in higher positions, it openly discriminated against this claimant solely because of his age. Such discrimination is forbidden by Sec. 881(a) cited above, which declares it to be “contrary to American principles of liberty and equality of opportunity.”

Parenthetically, we take judicial notice of the fact that the “American principles of liberty” have been in existence a long time. We believe that such language in the Age Discrimination statute indicates the legislative intent that the Act may be applied retroactively. (See I.L.P. Statutes §193 and Salmons vs. Dutz (1958) 16 Ill.App. 2d 356.)

No one questions the right of the Division of Highways to operate a program of “compulsory retirement for its employees.” That is specifically authorized by the statute in question (Sec. 883 supra). Respondent argues that the purpose of the retirement policy, which we find to be discriminating against the claimant, was “to encourage retirement at age 65 or as soon thereafter as practicable” rather than to make retirement compulsory at age 65. We find no such statement of intent in the said personnel policy issued in 1963 or in 1967. The purpose of both orders are stated in the following words, exactly the same except for effective date:

“In order to insure efficient and progressive management and operation of the Division of Highways in achieving its objectives, on and after July 1,1963, the following regulations will be applicable to the transfer or movement of employees from the supervisory and management positions listed under Section A and from other positions as indicated.”

The regulations then proceed to state that all employees shall vacate the positions they hold on their 65th birthday; that all persons over 65 shall receive a lower salary and lower job classification; and that certain employees (all in higher positions than the claimant) shall be assigned to other duties commensurate with capabilities. There is no provision in the regulations for employees of claimant’s age and class to be assigned “other duties”. They merely take a lower salary and lower classification, according to the aforesaid published policy.

Whether the departmental regulation was uniformly applied to all employees affected by it, as respondent contends, is irrelevant to the issue in this cause of action. All of the evidence in this record supports our finding that the said regulation, as it was applied to this particular claimant, discriminated against him solely because of his age. On and after his 65th birthday he continued to perform his same duties with a fine rating for efficiency, but his salary and classification were reduced. At the same time, other employees doing the same work were receiving increases in salary and classification.

The principal thrust of the respondent’s argument is that claimant did not have to work for the State of Illinois under these circumstances. Claimant could and perhaps should have quit, according to respondent, rather than perform the same duties as other Civil Engineer Ill’s but at a lower salary than the others received.

The undisputed fact is that the claimant protested his demotion and eventual termination at each step of the way. Despite his protests, the state continued to avail itself of the abilities of the claimant by continuously utilizing his skills and experience in the performance of the same duties he performed as a Civil Engineer III. In effect, the state was unjustly enriched by taking the services performed by the claimant without paying him the same compensation paid others performing the same work.

Why did claimant stay on? He hoped his protests would bear fruit; that he would be reinstated to his Civil Engineer HI rate with a corresponding increase in rate of pay, and considered that these chances would be lost if he resigned.

To hold that the claimant loses his right to assert this claim because he did not quit his job and seek other employment at his age, or live on his comparatively meager pension benefits, would violate the spirit and intent of the law which prohibits discrimination in employment because of age.

To the extent that the departmental regulation was inconsistent with the Age Discrimination Act, the Director of the Department of Public Works and.Buildings exceeded his power to prescribe such regulation. This is apparent from reading the words which limit the director’s statutory authority on this subject in Ch. 127, Sec. 16, Ill.Rev.Stat.:

“The director of each department is empowered to prescribe regulations, not inconsistent with law, for the government of his department. . .

None of the cases previously decided by this court, which were called to our attention, dealt with the legality of a departmental regulation remotely similar to the regulation which we here hold to be illegal as it was applied to the claimant.

It appears that no Illinois cases interpreting the Illinois Age Discrimination Act of 1967 have been reported by the reviewing courts. We were, therefore, impressed with claimant’s citation of an interpretation of the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Acknowledging that the said federal act is not directly applicable to claimant’s situation, claimant correctly points put that it is a statutory enactment of prevailing public policy, not only on the federal level, but also at the state level just as the Illinois Statute, effective July 26,1967, sets forth the public policy of this state against discrimination in employment on account of age.

Claimant submits the following statement from the “Administrator’s Interpretations” of the F ederal Act:

“Thus, for example, in a situation where it has been determined that an employer has violated the Act by paying a 62-year-old employee a prohibited wage differential of 50 cents an hour less than he is paying a 30-year-old worker, in order to achieve compliance with the Act, he must raise the wage rate of the older employee to equal that of the younger worker...(Section 860.75, Page 401:5076 Fair Employment Practice Manual, Bureau of National Affairs)

We find that claimant has proved his claim for damages by a preponderance of the evidence.

The amount which claimant demands as being due to him, if he prevails, is not disputed by the respondent. The amount of $16,051.25 is carefully broken down and explained in a Bill of Particulars attached to the complaint and in claimant’s Exhibit 14, admitted into evidence at the hearing. Since claimant’s calculations as to his damages are not in dispute and are apart of the permanent record in this case, we will not repeat them here.

However, in carefully examining claimant’s calculations in the aforesaid Exhibit 14, the court noted that there should have been deducted from the amount of the award a sum equal to the additional amount claimant would have been required to contribute to his pension fund if he had been paid the additional salary to which we find he was legally entitled from March 1, 1964, to August 7, 1967. The court called this matter to the attention of the parties, through the attorney for the respondent. We directed that the parties consult with the Department of Public Works and Buddings as to the rate of employee’s contribution to the pension fund during the period in question and advise the court accordingly. By a joint stipulation filed January 29, 1972, it was stipulated that the said “adjustment should be calculated as a 6% reduction of the $11,713.50 shown as salary loss” making the total reduction $702.78.

We therefore deduct the amount of $702.78 from $16,051.25, the amount previously claimed and proved as claimant’s damages, leaving $15,348.47 as the net amount due the claimant.

The claimant, Harry B. Williams, is hereby awarded damages in the total sum of $15,348.47.


text:
    (No. 6915
    Harry C. Henderson, Jr., M.D., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 26, 1973.

    Dr. Harry C. Henderson, Jr., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6943
    Texaco, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 26, 1973.

    Texaco, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7000
    Arch Oldham, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 26, 1973.

    Arch Oldham, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7056
    I.N.R. Beatty Lumber Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 26, 1973.

    I.N.R. Beatty Lumber Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7072
    Colind Photography, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 26, 1973.

    Colind Photography, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


author: Per Curiam. .

text:
    (No. 7082
    St. Therese Hospital, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 26, 1973.

    St. Therese Hospital, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam. .


text:
    (No. 73—CC—28
    Gestetner Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Secretary of State, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 2, 1973.

    Gestetner Corporation, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73—CC—60
    Irving B. Campbell, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Pollution Control Board, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 2, 1973.

    Irving B. Campbell, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73—CC—74
    Mt. Olivet Memorial Park, Ltd., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Public Aid, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 2, 1973.

    Mt. Olivet Memorial Park, Ltd., Claimant, pro se.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6486
    Phillip W. Proulx, and Allstate Insurance Company as Subrogee of Phillip W. Proulx, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Public Safety, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 2, 1973.

    Simon & Ingram, Attorney for Claimants.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Martin Soll, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Burks, J.

This is a claim for damages to claimants’ automobile which was struck by a state car driven by a state employee whose failure to obey a red light caused the accident.

At the hearing held on June 27,1972, Philip W. Proulx, the claimant, was the only witness to testify for either side. He stated that on March 29, 1969, at approximately 3:00 p.m., he was west bound on the Congress Expressway (Eisenhower); that he was in no way contributorily negligent when he was struck on the right front of his automobile by a car driven by John T. Williams, southbound on Clark, who had disobeyed a red light causing the accident. He stated that the automobile driven by John T. Williams bore a license which indicated it belonged to the State of Illinois and had a state seal on the side. The police report indicated that the said John T. Williams was an employee of the Division of Fire Prevention in the Illinois Department of Law Enforcement.

Claimant further stated that Mr. Williams told the police in his presence, “I thought I could make it but I didn’t.”

Claimant stated that he paid $56.00 of the repair bill and his insurer, Allstate, paid the balance. No other evidence was introduced by either party. There were three stipulations attached to and made a part of the record:

1. Total repair bill for claimant’s car was $455.22.

2. Proof of Loss and Subrogation agreement by the claimant, Allstate Insurance Company.

3. Stipulation to waive briefs, abstracts, oral arguments, and any further evidence.

In the absence of any rebuttal testimony and in view of the stipulations, we find that claimant has proved a prima facie case and is entitled to an award in the amount of his damages. We hereby make the following awards in this cause:

To the claimant, Philip W. Proulx, the sum of $56.00.

To Allstate Insurance Company, as subrogee of Philip W. Proulx, the sum of $399.22.


text:
    (No. 6552
    Sun Oil Company of Pennsylvania, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Agriculture, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 2, 1973.

    Sun Oil Company of Pennsylvania, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6643
    Albert Milligan, d/b/a Milligan Refrigeration and Appliance, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 2, 1973.

    Paul F. Davidson, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6725
    Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 2, 1973.

    Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6992
    Lodge Management, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Public Aid, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 2, 1973.

      Lodge Management, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6995
    Council House, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 2, 1973.

    Council House, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7006
    Gulf Oil Company—U.S., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 2, 1973.

    Gulf Oil Company—U.S., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7019
    Loyola University Hospital, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 2, 1973.

    Loyola University, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul K Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7036
    Donald W. Vickers, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 2, 1973.

    Donald W. Vickers, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7044
    Resco, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 2, 1973.

    Resco, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7048
    Retta Mae Allen, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 2, 1973.

    Retta Mae Allen, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7051
    Inger Ackerman, M.D., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 2, 1973.

    Dr. Inger Ackerman, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7059
    Acan X-Ray—Michigan, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 2, 1973.

    Acan X-Ray—Michigan, Inc., Claimant, pro se.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7061
    Xerox Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Attorney General's Office, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 2, 1973.

    Xerox Corporation, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7065
    Sanders Associates, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Secretary of State, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 2, 1973.

    Sanders Associates, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7106
    Robert P. Ryan, Ph.D., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 2, 1973.

    Dr. Robert P. Ryan, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6717
    Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Registration and Education, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 8, 1973.

    Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6722
    Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 8, 1973.

    Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6723
    Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Personnel, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 8, 1973.

    Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6910
    Aero Ambulance Service, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 8, 1973.

    Aero Ambulance Service, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 6959
    Mercyville Hospital, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 8, 1973.

    Mercyville Hospital, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7026
    Louis S. Elovitz, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Pollution Control Board, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 8, 1973.

    Louis S. Elovitz, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7046
    George D. Karcazes, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Attorney General’s Office, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 8, 1973.

    George D. Karcazes, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 7078
    Bolotin, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Conservation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 8, 1973.

    Bolotin, Inc., Claimant, pro se.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73—CC—8
    American Hospital Supply Division, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 22, 1973.

    American Hospital Supply Division, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73—CC—16
    Anglela J. D'Aversa, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 22, 1973.

    Angela J. D’Aversa, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73—CC—19
    Texaco, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 22, 1973.

    Texaco, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73—CC—30
    James R. Erlenbaugh, d/b/a James Ambulance Service, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 22, 1973.

    James R. Erlenbaugh, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73—CC—31
    Fehrenbach Chevrolet, Inc. Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 22, 1973.

    Fehrenbach Chevrolet, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73—CC—69
    James B. Conlisk, Jr., as Superintendent, Chicago Police Department, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Finance, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 22, 1973.

    Richard L. Curry, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73—CC—88
    Intoximeters, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Illinois State Police, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 22, 1973.

    Intoximeters, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73—CC—102
    Sheraton Rock Island, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Governor’s Office of Human Resources, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 22, 1973.

    Sheraton Rock Island, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73—CC—105
    Hilltop Drugs, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 22, 1973.

    Hilltop Drugs, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73—CC—107
    Janice D. Houston, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 22, 1973.

    Janice D. Houston, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73—CC—111
    Mer-Roc FS Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Law Enforcement, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 22, 1973.

      Mer-Roc FS Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73—CC—122
    Sun Oil Company of Pennsylvania, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of General Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 22, 1973.

    Sun Oil Company of Pennsylvania, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73—CC—140
    Aldus S. Mitchell, Hearing Examiner, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Fair Employment Practices Commission, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 22, 1973.

    Aldus S. Mitchell, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 4820
    Samuel M. McKendree, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Secretary of State, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 22, 1973.

    Unger, Litak & Groppi, Attorney for Claimant.
    William G. Clark, Attorney General; C. Arthur Nebel, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Burks, J.

Claimant alleged that his restricted driver’s license had been suspended by the Secretary of State “without legal justification” and claims damages for his financial loss, inconvenience, and distress resulting from the loss of his driving privileges.

We find that the facts in the record appear to support the actions of the Secretary of State as being proper and in accordance with the statutes.

In any event, this claim is barred by claimant’s failure to pursue his proper remedy under the “Administrative Review Act” Ch. 110, Sec. 265, Ill.Rev.Stat. Such judicial review of any final act of the Secretary of State under the “Illinois Driver Licensing Law” Ch. 95½, Sec. 6-421, Ill.Rev.Stat. [substantially the same as Sec. 73.11 which was in effect when this claim was filed] was then, as it would be now, the first remedy a claimant must pursue, in this type of cause, before he can seek a determination of a claim for damages in this court. Court of Claims Act Sec. 25.

Although claimant subsequently obtained a restricted driver’s license, we have no authority to conclude that his license was wrongfully revoked or suspended during the interim period for which he claims damages. Such a finding could only have been made by a court of competent jurisdiction.

At the time this action was brought, claimant could have obtained a judicial review of the Secretary’s action in the Circuit Court of Vermilion County. Jurisdiction to review such matters is now restricted to the Circuit Courts of Sangamon or Cook Counties as stated in the following provision of the “Illinois Drivers’ Licensing Law”:

“§6-421 Judicial review. The action of the Secretary in cancelling, suspending, revoking or denying any license under this Act shall be subject to judicial review in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County or the Circuit Court of Cook County, and the provisions of the Administrative Review Act, approved May 8, 1945, and all amendments and modifications thereto, and the rules adopted pursuant thereto, are hereby adopted and shall apply to and govern every action for judicial review of the final acts or decisions of the Secretary under this Act.”

This claim is hereby denied.