Grady v. Ill. Dep't of Healthcare & Family Servs.

• Decision Date: 02 November 2016
• Docket Number: No. 1–15–2402.,1–15–2402.
• Citation: 67 N.E.3d 357,2016 IL App (1st) 152402
• Parties: Lauretta GRADY, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES and Julie Hamos, Its Director, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2016 IL App (1st) 152402

67 N.E.3d 357

Lauretta GRADY, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.The ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES and Julie Hamos, Its Director, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 1–15–2402.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

Nov. 2, 2016.

Legal Assistance Foundation, of Chicago (Miriam Hallbauer, of counsel), for appellant.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Carolyn E. Shapiro, Solicitor General, and Paul Racette, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellees.

OPINION

Justice COBBS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Plaintiff Lauretta Grady appeals from the dismissal with prejudice of her complaint seeking judicial review of an administrative decision nominally rendered by the Illinois Department of Human Services (DHS) regarding her eligibility for a Medicaid program. In her complaint, plaintiff named the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (DHFS) and its director, Julie Hamos, as defendants but not DHS or that agency's head. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint for failure to name required parties, arguing that DHFS has the statutory authority to determine questions of Medicaid eligibility and consequently was the proper defendant. Alternatively, she contends that if she failed to name the proper parties she was entitled to amend her complaint to correct the error, pursuant to subsection 3–107(a) of the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3–107(a) (West 2014)). For the reasons that follow, we find plaintiff failed to name the proper defendant in her complaint but was entitled to amend her complaint. We reverse and remand.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Plaintiff participates in the Home Services Plan, a program intended to prevent unnecessary institutionalization of individuals, pursuant to the Traumatic Brain Injury Medicaid Waiver Program. As part of the plan, participants take part in regular reassessments to determine their continued eligibility and needs. Following a reassessment in June 2014, plaintiff was assigned a plan that granted her 155 hours of medical services per month.

¶ 4 Subsequently, plaintiff filed an administrative appeal of the plan, seeking additional hours for an assistant to aid with certain therapies prescribed by her doctor. An administrative hearing was held before an officer of DHS, and the officer recommended a new service plan with marginally increased hours. The caption atop the officer's written decision stated "STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES," and the decision's first paragraph indicated that the officer was a hearing officer for "the Department of Human Services * * * Bureau of Hearings." The officer later noted that "the Department of Human Services has jurisdiction" over the administrative appeal. The decision's final page was signed by Michelle R.B. Saddler, the secretary of DHS at the time, and indicated that Saddler was adopting the findings and recommendations of the hearing officer. The decision was sent to plaintiff with a cover letter, signed by Saddler and indicating that the "Illinois Department of Human Services reviewed" her appeal.

¶ 5 Alleging that the increased hours were still insufficient, plaintiff appealed the administrative decision in a complaint filed in the Cook County circuit court on December 18, 2014. The complaint did not name DHS or Saddler as defendants; instead, it named DHFS and its then-director, Hamos. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint without leave to amend, arguing that DHS was a necessary party because it had issued the decision to be reviewed. Plaintiff responded that DHFS was the agency responsible under the law for rendering the decision to be reviewed and thus was the correct party. She also argued alternatively that the court was required to grant her 35 days to serve the correct defendant and that any mistake should be excused as a "good faith" error.

¶ 6 Before the trial court made its ruling on the motion to dismiss, the Appellate Court, Fourth District, rendered its decision in Mannheim School District No. 83 v. Teachers' Retirement System, 2015 IL App (4th) 140531, 390 Ill.Dec. 954, 29 N.E.3d 1224, holding that subsection 3–107(a) of the Administrative Review Law does not require leave to amend a complaint "to include the agency that rendered the final decision as a defendant when an individual member of that agency was not named." Id. ¶ 28. Defendants were granted leave to cite Mannheim as additional authority, and plaintiff responded that the case was wrongly decided. In a written order, the trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss, stating that plaintiff's failure to name DHS was fatal to her claim. The court also denied plaintiff leave to amend, explaining that although it agreed that Mannheim was wrongly decided, it was bound by the Fourth District's holding.

¶ 7 ANALYSIS

¶ 8 Plaintiff first contends that defendants were properly named in her suit because the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3–101 et seq. (West 2014)) requires the agency "having power under the law to make administrative decisions" to be named as defendant. Citing Gillmore v. Illinois Department of Human Services, 218 Ill.2d 302, 300 Ill.Dec. 78, 843 N.E.2d 336 (2006), she argues that "power under the law" refers solely to power under the relevant statute and that DHFS has the statutory authority to determine Medicaid eligibility. Defendants respond that the Administrative Review Law requires that the agency that actually issued a ruling be named as defendant. They argue that it is clear from the record that DHS issued the determination in question and thus DHS should have been named as defendant.

¶ 9 Where the circuit court has granted a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to section 2–619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2–619 (West 2014) ), as occurred in this case, our review is de novo. Rodriguez v. Sheriff's Merit Comm'n, 218 Ill.2d 342, 349, 300 Ill.Dec. 121, 843 N.E.2d 379 (2006). Plaintiff raises matters of statutory interpretation, which are similarly reviewed de novo. Skaperdas v. Country Casualty Insurance Co., 2015 IL 117021, ¶ 15, 390 Ill.Dec. 94, 28 N.E.3d 747.

¶ 10 When construing a statute, our primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intent through giving the statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning. People v. Lloyd, 2013 IL 113510, ¶ 25, 369 Ill.Dec. 759, 987 N.E.2d 386. If the language is clear and unambiguous, a court may not deviate from that language by inferring exceptions or conditions that the General Assembly did not set forth. Wilkins v. Williams, 2013 IL 114310, ¶ 22, 372 Ill.Dec. 1, 991 N.E.2d 308. However, statutory interpretation "cannot always be reduced to ‘the mechanical application of the dictionary definitions of the individual words and phrases involved.’ " People v. Wood, 379 Ill.App.3d 705, 708–09, 318 Ill.Dec. 389, 883 N.E.2d 620 (2008) (quoting Whelan v. County Officers' Electoral Board, 256 Ill.App.3d 555, 558, 196 Ill.Dec. 297, 629 N.E.2d 842 (1994) ). A court should not read language in an excessively literal fashion such that it produces an absurd construction. See id. at 709, 318 Ill.Dec. 389, 883 N.E.2d 620.

¶ 11 The Administrative Review Law governs all proceedings in which a party seeks judicial review of an administrative eligibility decision under article V of the Illinois Public Aid Code (305 ILCS 5/5–1 (West 2014) ). Gillmore, 218 Ill.2d at 314, 300 Ill.Dec. 78, 843 N.E.2d 336 ; see also 305 ILCS 5/11–8.7 (West 2014). Subsection 3–107(a) of the Administrative Review Law requires that "in any action to review any final decision of an administrative agency, the administrative agency and all persons, other than the plaintiff, who were parties of record to the proceedings before the administrative agency shall be made defendants." 735 ILCS 5/3–107(a) (West 2014).

¶ 12 Section 3–101 of the Administrative Review Law sets forth the applicable definitions. 735 ILCS 5/3–101 (West 2014). "Administrative agency" is defined as "a person, body of persons, group, officer, board, bureau, commission or department (other than a court or judge) of the State, or of any political subdivision of the State or municipal corporation in the State, having power under law to make administrative decisions." Id. The Administrative Review Law defines an "administrative decision" as "any decision, order or determination of any administrative agency rendered in a particular case, which affects the legal rights, duties or privileges of parties and which terminates the proceedings before the administrative agency." Id.

¶ 13 The Administrative Review Law clearly requires that when an individual seeks review of an administrative agency decision, that agency must be named as a defendant. The only natural reading of subsection 3–107(a) indicates that the phrase "the administrative agency" that is the subject of the subsection's requirement refers to the same entity as the phrase "an administrative agency," which occurs in the prepositional phrase immediately preceding it. See 305 ILCS 5/11–8.7 (West 2014). We must therefore conclude that "the administrative agency" required by statute to be named a defendant is the agency that issued the challenged decision. We note that a contrary conclusion could lead to the highly impractical result of an agency being required to defend a decision which it took no part in making.

¶ 14 It is clear from the record that the decision plaintiff seeks to review was issued by DHS and not DHFS. The proceedings were held before a DHS hearing officer, and the decision itself clearly designated the DHS as the issuing body. The decision was sent to plaintiff along with a letter indicating that her case had been reviewed by DHS. There is nothing in the record that suggests that DHFS took any part in the challenged decision. Accordingly, DHS was required to be named as defendant.

¶ 15 Plaintiff argues that the...