Thompson v. Department of Human Services ( 2024 )

2024 IL App (1st) 221002No. 1-22-1002
September 27, 2024
FIFTH DIVISION
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT
SAM THOMPSON, as Administrator of the ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
Estate of Lynda Parker, Deceased, ) of Cook County.
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
)
v. ) No. 20 CH 6969
)
THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ) The Honorable
SERVICES, an Administrative Agency and ) David B. Atkins
DULCE QUINTERO, in Her Official Capacity ) Judge, presiding.
)
as Secretary Designate, )
)
)
Defendants-Appellees. )
JUSTICE ODEN JOHNSON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Presiding Justice Mikva and Justice Navarro concurred in the judgment and
opinion.
OPINION
¶1 Plaintiff Sam Thompson is the administrator of the estate of the deceased, Lynda
Parker, and an employee of the nursing home where Parker lived until she died. Defendant the
Department of Human Services (Department) denied both Parker’s request for benefits and a
subsequent request to reopen the case. The benefits at issue here are long-term care benefits
from the Aid to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled (AABD) program administered by the
No. 1-22-1002
Department. The original denial of benefits was never appealed. This appeal is an appeal from
the Department’s denial of Parker’s subsequent request to reopen the case. After a hearing, the
administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction, and the circuit court
affirmed the dismissal on the same ground. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶2 BACKGROUND
¶3 Lynda Parker, born April 1, 1936, was admitted to Southgate Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center (Southgate), in Metropolis, Illinois, on November 9, 2015. On May 6,
2018, Parker signed a document authorizing Jennifer Christian to represent her in her benefits
appeal. Christian was Southgate’s business office manager. Although this document was not
signed until 2018, Christian appears to have represented Parker since 2016.
¶4 On February 11, 2016, Parker, through her representative, submitted an application for
long-term care benefits to the Department. On June 6, 2016, the application was denied based
on her failure to submit verification information that was required to determine her eligibility.
The missing information included (1) statements for a Grand Rapids bank account for February
2016 and from February 2015 through July 31, 2015; (2) an itemized prepaid burial contract
showing services and goods provided and showing whether the contract was or was not
irrevocable; and (3) a 2016 tax bill for a homestead property. It is undisputed that information
was outstanding at the time of the denial and that notice of the June 2016 denial was received
in a timely fashion by Parker.
¶5 At a subsequent hearing, Christian conceded that an appeal of the denial was not filed
within 60 days. See 89 Ill. Adm. Code 14.10(f)(1) (2001) (“the appeal must be filed within 60
days after the Department’s action to notify”). Christian testified: “I had no idea that I had to
file an Appeal. I thought that if I did a reopen, I did not know that they both *** coincided.”
2
No. 1-22-1002
Christian acknowledged: “I’ve learned a lot since then. Back then I was not aware that a reopen
and an Appeal[,] you had to do both.” Christian “just thought you did the reopen and they
actually did do a reopen and you just waited on them to do” it. However, Christian admitted
“that’s not how it works, which I’ve learned now.” 1
¶6 On June 24, 2016, Parker through her representative submitted a request to reopen her
case, with additional information. The request was submitted via e-mail to the Department’s
medical field office (MFO). The MFO acknowledged that, on November 28, 2016, it also
received a copy of a receipt from the funeral home, but it found that this document did not
indicate how the contract was funded, whether it was prepaid, and whether it was irrevocable.
¶7 Almost four years after submitting the reopen request, counsel for Parker filed on May
7, 2020, an appeal seeking review of the Department’s alleged inaction regarding Parker’s
reopen request. On July 13, 2020, a hearing on this appeal was held and then was continued
on Parker’s motion. The hearing reconvened on August 6, 2020, when Parker’s motion for a
continuance was again granted. The record was left open until September 1, 2020, to permit
both sides to submit supporting exhibits.
¶8 At the hearing, Christian testified, as did a representative of the Department. The
Department’s representative was Cory Kistner, a casework manager. Kistner testified that,
while the Department had not mailed a written notice of its denial of Parker’s reopen request,
the case files indicated that the caseworker reviewed the reopen request on October 21, 2016,
and called Southgate. The date of October 21, 2016, was less than four months after Christian
submitted the request on June 24, 2016; Kistner testified that the case files established that,
1
When asked whether she was aware at the time that there was a time limit on how long a
claimant had to file an appeal after the issuance of a decision, Christian admitted: “not at the time. I had
no idea.”
3
No. 1-22-1002
when the caseworker called Southgate on October 21, he was transferred into Christian’s
voicemail. On her voicemail, he left a message indicating that the case did not qualify for a
reopen request and that a new application would have to be filed. Kistner testified that another
application was filed in February 2019, that this application was denied and appealed, but that
this appeal was later withdrawn. Christian testified that she had no notes of any voicemail
message and that, had she received such a message, she would have logged it in her file.
Christian testified that communication to and from the Department was done mainly through
e-mail and that is how she expected to receive information.
¶9 Apparently finding Kistner’s testimony credible, the ALJ found:
“In this case *** the Department Representative provided credible, consistent
testimony that the Department received and reviewed the reopen request. The
Representative further demonstrated that the assigned caseworker subsequently
provided notice apprising the facility that the request was denied. It is noted that the
Department Representative’s testimony was supported with internal case notes, created
in the normal course of business.
The relevant inquiry is therefore whether Appellant was entitled to written notice
that the Department denied the reopen request.”
¶ 10 Noting that the Illinois Administrative Code (Code) requires written notice of the
disposition of an application, the ALJ found that no written notice was required here, because
the denial of a request to reopen was not “a disposition, that is, it was not a determination on
eligibility.” With respect to the original denial of benefits, the ALJ found that the “period for
an appeal submission is unaffected by Appellant’s Representative’s unfamiliarity with the
appeal process outlined by the Administrative Code.” The ALJ found that it lacked jurisdiction
4
No. 1-22-1002
and dismissed the appeal. Grace B. Hou, the Secretary of Human Services, adopted the ALJ’s
decision as the final administrative decision.
¶ 11 On November 24, 2020, Parker “through her attorney-in-fact,” who at that time was
her son Shane Parker, filed a “complaint for administrative review” with the circuit court. On
July 6, 2022, the circuit court issued a four-page memorandum order affirming the
administrative decision. The circuit court found that, since the underlying decision concerned
whether or not to reopen the case and not the disposition of an application, written notice was
not required by section 10.270(a) of Title 89 2 of the Code (89 Ill. Adm. Code 10.270(a) (2020)
(requiring “written notice” of the “disposition of an application”)). The circuit court affirmed
the administrative decision, and a notice of appeal was filed on July 6, 2022, which was within
30 days of the circuit court’s decision.
¶ 12 Parker died on February 24, 2023. Thus, when discussing arguments in our analysis
section below, we refer to her estate and its representatives simply as plaintiff.
¶ 13 ANALYSIS
¶ 14 On appeal, plaintiff alleges that the decision violates her due process right to be heard
by dismissing her appeal as untimely and thereby denying her a fair hearing; that the decision
deprived her of a constitutionally protected property right, where her appeal was timely, since
time limits do not begin to run until there is proper notice; that there is a conflict between state
and federal law; and that the requested documents were provided, rendering any decision to
the contrary against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 15 I. We Review the Agency’s Order and Record
2
Title 89 governs “Social Services.”
5
No. 1-22-1002
¶ 16 Before this court, plaintiff appeals the circuit court’s decision on her complaint for
administrative review. However, “[w]hen a party appeals the circuit court’s decision on a
complaint for administrative review, the appellate court’s role is to review the administrative
decision rather than the circuit court’s decision.” Walker v. Dart, 2015 IL App (1st) 140087,
¶ 34. “As a court of review, we are limited to considering the evidence submitted in the
administrative hearing.” Walker, 2015 IL App (1st) 140087, ¶ 35. The burden of proof in an
administrative proceeding is on the plaintiff in the proceeding who, in our case, was Parker
and her representatives. Walker, 2015 IL App (1st) 140087, ¶ 35. Thus, on this appeal, we are
reviewing the decision of, and the record before, the Department. 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West
2020) (“No new or additional evidence in support of or in opposition to any finding, order,
determination or decision of the administrative agency shall be heard by the court.”).
¶ 17 Before the trial court and before this court, plaintiff raised arguments concerning
federal statutes and regulations that were not raised before the ALJ. Since we review the ALJ’s
decision, these arguments have been, as the Department argues and we explain below, forfeited
for our review. Although the circuit court reviewed plaintiff’s federal claims, finding them
meritless in two lines, the circuit court’s decision to summarily review these claims does not
bind us, since our review is de novo with respect to the circuit court’s decision and we owe no
deference to the circuit court’s legal findings. Arvia v. Madigan, 209 Ill. 2d 520, 526 (2004).
¶ 18 The case primarily relied on by the circuit court to review these claims was Arvia, 209
Ill. 2d 520. The Arvia court began by noting the “general rule” that “issues or defenses not
raised before the administrative agency are deemed waived and cannot be raised for the first
time on administrative review.” Arvia, 209 Ill. 2d at 526. Nonetheless, the Arvia court found
no waiver on the circumstances before it, where the circuit court had found a state statute
6
No. 1-22-1002
unconstitutional on its face and where the statute in question restricted the scope of the
administrative hearing, thereby “dissuad[ing] a party from raising other issues and defenses
before the Secretary of State.” Arvia, 209 Ill. 2d at 527. While acknowledging the general rule,
the Arvia court explained that “[a] facial challenge to a statute, however, presents an entirely
legal question that does not require fact-finding by the agency or application of the agency’s
particular expertise.” Arvia, 209 Ill. 2d at 528. By contrast, in her brief to this court, plaintiff
stated that she was not making a facial challenge. 3 In addition, she argued that the alleged
conflict with federal Medicaid law stemmed from the Department’s “failure to inform Plaintiff
of a decision on her request.” 4 This allegation challenges the Department’s “fact-finding” since
it found that she had, in fact, been informed, and it also implicates the Department’s “particular
expertise” on benefits law since she alleges conflicts with comparable federal law. See Arvia,
209 Ill. 2d at 528. These differences take plaintiff’s case out of the purview of the Arvia case.
¶ 19 Arvia ended its discussion of waiver with a warning to litigants “to raise all defenses
before the administrative tribunal—even those outside of the agency’s authority to decide—or
risk waiver on review.” Arvia, 209 Ill. 2d at 531. Plaintiff failed to heed this advice, and for
the foregoing reasons, we find her federal-conflict claims waived for our consideration.
¶ 20 II. Standard of Review: Factual Finding
¶ 21 As noted above, there was a factual dispute before the ALJ, about whether the
Department’s caseworker did or did not inform Christian by voicemail of the Department’s
3
Plaintiff’s brief states: “The [state] policy on its face does not appear to present a constitutional
deprivation. It was the ALJ’s application of the statute in this case to deny Plaintiff her right to a fair
hearing that results in the deprivation.”
4
Plaintiff’s brief asserts throughout that she received no notice and that it was this fact that denied
her constitutional rights and created an alleged conflict with federal Medicaid law. For example, the
argument section of her brief asserts that “DHS issued no notice of action to Plaintiff.” Similarly, the brief
later states: “The failure to inform Plaintiff of a decision on her request prompted the appeal filed on May
6, 2020.”
7
No. 1-22-1002
denial of Parker’s request to renew. This question is separate and apart from the legal question
of whether the Department was statutorily required to send a written notice of some kind, such
as a letter or e-mail. The ALJ found for the Department on both questions: that Christian had,
in fact, been informed by voicemail and that this voicemail notice was legally sufficient for the
denial of a request to renew, since such a denial was not the disposition of an application.
¶ 22 With respect to an agency’s factual findings, a court of review must start with the
presumption that they are “prima facie true and correct.” 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2020) (“The
findings and conclusions of the administrative agency on questions of fact shall be held to be
prima facie true and correct.”). An agency’s findings of fact and credibility determination may
not be overturned unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Parikh v.
Division of Professional Regulation of the Department of Financial & Professional
Regulation, 2014 IL App (1st) 123319, ¶ 28. A finding is against the manifest weight only if
the opposite conclusion is clearly evident. Parikh, 2014 IL App (1st) 123319, ¶ 28. If an issue
is merely one of conflicting testimony or witness credibility, then the agency’s determination
should stand. Parikh, 2014 IL App (1st) 123319, ¶ 28.
¶ 23 In the case at bar, Christian testified that, if she had received a voicemail, she would
have made a note, while Kistner testified that the Department’s case file indicated that the
caseworker had left a message on Christian’s voicemail indicating that the case did not qualify
for a reopen request and that a new application would have to be filed. The ALJ resolved this
factual dispute in favor of the Department, and we cannot find this result against the manifest
weight of the evidence where it was supported by Kistner’s testimony and documentary
evidence from the Department’s case files. Thus, we proceed with the rest of our analysis with
8
No. 1-22-1002
the understanding that plaintiff was informed of the denial of the reopen request. As noted
above, this is a separate question from whether written notice was required.
¶ 24 III. Standard of Review: Legal and Mixed Questions
¶ 25 Plaintiff’s initial brief asserted no notice, while plaintiff’s reply brief seemed to shift
the argument to assert no notice or no written notice. Since we already found that the ALJ’s
factual finding was not against the weight of the evidence, we now turn to the arguments
regarding written notice.
¶ 26 Plaintiff alleges that the lack of written notice of the reopen denial violated statutory
requirements and that the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction violated her due process right to be
heard. Questions of statutory interpretation and questions of due process are questions of law,
to which we apply a de novo standard of review. WISAM 1, Inc. v. Illinois Liquor Control
Comm’n, 2014 IL 116173, ¶ 24 (whether a claimant before an administrative agency was
“provided with the necessary due process is a question of law which this court reviews
de novo”); Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200,
210 (2008) (“an agency’s interpretation of the meaning of the language of a statute constitutes
a pure question of law,” to which we apply a de novo standard of review). An agency’s decision
on a question of law is not binding on a reviewing court, and thus, “the court’s review is
independent and not deferential.” Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 210.
¶ 27 To the extent that the questions in front of us pose a mixed question of law and fact,
we review the agency’s decision under the clearly erroneous standard. Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at
211. “ ‘Clearly erroneous’ ” denotes an intermediate level of deference that is between de novo
review and manifest weight review. Koehler v. Illinois Liquor Control Comm’n, 405 Ill. App.
3d 1071, 1079 (2010). It “means that the agency’s decision will be reversed only where the
9
No. 1-22-1002
reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
Koehler, 405 Ill. App. 3d at 1079.
¶ 28 IV. Written Notice and the Statute
¶ 29 Plaintiff claims that, by dismissing as untimely her appeal of her request to renew, the
Department deprived her of due process by denying her a hearing. However, a court should
always address nonconstitutional issues first. In re E.H., 224 Ill. 2d 172, 178 (2006) (“cases
should be decided on nonconstitutional grounds whenever possible, reaching constitutional
issues only as a last resort”). Thus, before analyzing her constitutional claim, we discuss
whether the Department failed to give her statutorily sufficient notice. Plaintiff claims a
voicemail was not enough, and the Department found that it was.
¶ 30 With statutory interpretation, our primary goal is to ascertain and give effect to the
intent of the statute’s drafters. VC&M, Ltd. v. Andrews, 2013 IL 114445, ¶ 30. The most
reliable indicator of the drafters’ intent is the language they chose to use in the statute itself.
VC&M, Ltd., 2013 IL 114445, ¶ 30. The drafters’ language should be given its plain and
ordinary meaning (VC&M, Ltd., 2013 IL 114445, ¶ 30), and the statute that they crafted should
be read as a whole (Watson v. Legacy Healthcare Financial Services, LLC, 2021 IL App (1st)
210279, ¶ 38 (an act must be read in its entirety)). Looking at Title 89 as a whole and reading
the various relevant sections convinces us that written notice was not statutorily required.
¶ 31 First, section 10.270(a) provides: “Every applicant for assistance shall be sent or given
a written notice of disposition of the application.” 89 Ill. Adm. Code 10.270(a) (2011). At issue
here was not an “application” but a request to reopen the case. 89 Ill. Adm. Code 10.270(a)
(2011); Flachs v. Illinois Department of Human Services, 2021 IL App (4th) 200349-U,
¶ 32 (“[t]he Department’s decision not to reopen plaintiff’s application cannot be properly
10
No. 1-22-1002
understood as a ‘disposition of the application’ for purposes of the Code”). Plaintiff’s
application had a final and appealable disposition in a prior proceeding, and Christian
admittedly received the required written notice of the disposition but did not appeal within 60
days. 89 Ill. Adm. Code 10.270(a) (2011); 89 Ill. Adm. Code 14.10(f)(1) (2001) (“For a public
assistance issue, the appeal must be filed within 60 days after the Department’s action to notify
the client[.]”).
¶ 32 Second, section 10.282(a) draws a distinction between “notification” and “written
notification.” 89 Ill. Adm. Code 10.282(a) (2020). Section 10.282(a) provides, in relevant part:
“Day one of the 60 day time period shall be the day following:
(1) The date on a written notification of a decision on an application ***
(2) The date of the Department’s notification of a denial of a request ***.” 89
Ill. Adm. Code 10.282(a) (2020).
The above language contemplates “a written notification of a decision on an application,” but
only “notification” of the “denial of a request,” thereby indicating that written notification is
not required for the denial of a request. 89 Ill. Adm. Code 10.282 (2020).
¶ 33 Lastly, section 10.282(b) provides that the “60 day time limitation does not apply when
the Department [(1)] fails to send a required written notification, [(2)] fails to take action on a
specific request, or [(3)] denies a request without informing the client.” 89 Ill. Adm. Code
10.282(b) (2020). For the denial of a request, the period is tolled only if the Department does
so “without informing the client.” 89 Ill. Adm. Code 10.282(b) (2020). “[I]nforming the
client,” thus, appears to be all that is required when the Department denies a request. 89 Ill.
Adm. Code 10.282(b) (2020). As we already explained above, the ALJ’s factual finding that
11
No. 1-22-1002
the Department had informed plaintiff by leaving a voicemail was not against the manifest
weight of the evidence.
¶ 34 To counter this plain statutory language, plaintiff cites Southgate Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center v. Illinois Department of Human Services, No. 19-CH-2782 (Cir. Ct.
Cook County, June 2, 2020). As a circuit court case, it has no precedential value. Delgado v.
Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago, 224 Ill. 2d 481, 488 (2007) (“Under Illinois law,
the decisions of circuit courts have no precedential value ***.”). Even if it did, it is readily
distinguishable from the case at bar because, in that case, the claimant received no notice at
all.
¶ 35 In the prior Southgate case, both Christian and Kistner appeared to testify at the
administrative hearing, as they did here. Southgate, No. 19-CH-2782, at 3-4. However, in the
prior case, Kistner indicated that Southgate was not informed that its request to reopen had
been denied, whereas in the case at bar, Kistener testified that the caseworker had contacted
Southgate to inform it of the denial. As a result, the circuit court in the prior case found that
the Department had failed to notify the plaintiff and that the 60-day time limit did not apply
where the Department “ ‘denies a request without informing the client.’ ” 5 Southgate, No. 19-
CH-2782, at 11 (quoting 89 Ill. Adm. Code 10.282(b) (2020)). Thus, the cited circuit court
case is both nonprecedential and factually different in significant respects.
¶ 36 Where the statutory language is plain, where the drafters’ scheme is consistent
throughout several sections, and the cited case is both distinguishable and nonprecedential, we
can find no statutory violation.
The circuit court criticized the Department, noting that its failure to respond at all “leaves the
5
applicant completely in the dark.” Southgate, No. 19-CH-2782, at 11.
12
No. 1-22-1002
¶ 37 V. Due Process
¶ 38 Plaintiff is correct in that “a cause of action is a species of property protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause [(U.S. Const., amend. XIV)].” Logan v.
Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 428 (1982). The United States Supreme Court has
interpreted the federal due process clause as preventing the states from denying potential
litigants use of established adjudicatory procedures, when such action would be the equivalent
of denying them an opportunity to be heard. Logan, 455 U.S. at 429-30. However, nothing
prevents a state from erecting reasonable procedural requirements, and a state “certainly
accords due process when it terminates a claim for failure to comply with a reasonable
procedural” requirement. (Emphasis in original.) Logan, 455 U.S. at 437.
¶ 39 In the case at bar, plaintiff filed an application with her claim and received prompt
written notification of its denial. The law gave her every right to appeal, but she did not. Instead
of filing an appeal within the statutorily required 60 days, plaintiff submitted only a
discretionary request to reopen—a choice that Christian later candidly admitted was a mistake.
Flachs, 2021 IL App (4th) 200349-U, ¶ 37 (“[t]he Department affords applicants [the]
opportunity” to submit a reopen request “only as a matter of administrative grace”). The
Department notified Christian promptly by voicemail of its denial of plaintiff’s request, as
determined after an evidentiary hearing at which all sides testified and submitted documents.
In the case at bar, where plaintiff was afforded appellate rights, hearings, and prompt
notifications, it is impossible to find a violation of constitutional due process. Flachs, 2021 IL
App (4th) 200349-U, ¶ 37 (finding no denial of due process although the Department did not
provide written notice of its denial of a reopen request).
¶ 40 CONCLUSION
13
No. 1-22-1002
¶ 41 For all the foregoing reasons, we affirm the dismissal of this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We find, first, that any arguments regarding federal statutes and regulations were
waived for failure to bring them before the Department, particularly where the Department has
expertise in this area and plaintiff was also challenging the Department’s fact-finding. Second,
the ALJ’s factual finding that plaintiff was informed of the denial of her request to reopen was
not against the manifest weight of the evidence, where it was supported by testimony and
documentary evidence that the ALJ found to be credible. Third, reviewing the statute as a
whole and reading the various relevant sections together established that written notice was
not statutorily required for the denial of a reopen request. Lastly, we cannot find a deprivation
of constitutional due process, where plaintiff received written notice of the disposition of her
application and failed to exercise the appellate rights afforded to her and where she received
prompt notification of the denial of her request to reopen, as well as a full evidentiary hearing
on the notification issue. That the ALJ found the other side more credible is not a due process
issue.
¶ 42 Affirmed.
14
No. 1-22-1002
Thompson v. Department of Human Services, 2024 IL App (1st) 221002Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 20-CH-
6969; the Hon. David B. Atkins, Judge, presiding.
Attorneys Kelsey Feucht, of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for appellant.
for
Appellant:
Attorneys Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Chicago (Jane Elinor Notz,
for Solicitor General, and Bridget DiBattista, Assistant Attorney
Appellee: General, of counsel), for appellees.
15