Pearce Hospital Foundation v. Illinois Public Aid Commission

Citation154 N.E.2d 691,15 Ill.2d 301
Decision Date16 December 1958
Docket NumberNo. 34948,34948
PartiesPEARCE HOSPITAL FOUNDATION et al., Appellees, v. ILLINOIS PUBLIC AID COMMISSION et al., Appellants.
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

Latham Castle, Atty. Gen. (William C. Wines, Theodore G. Maheras and Raymond S. Sarnow, Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.

Simon Stickgold and Joseph J. McGovern, Chicago, for appellees.

DAILY, Chief Justice.

This appeal involves two cases, consolidated below and disposed of by a single judgment, wherein appellees, Dr. Lee J. Pearce, and Pearce Hospital Foundation, a corporation, filed complaints in the superior court of Cook County for judicial review of an administrative decision of the Illinois Public Aid Commission. Judgment was entered for appellees when the commission elected to abide by unsuccessful motions to strike and dismiss the actions and this direct appeal, involving financial interests of the State, has been prosecuted by the commission. The principal question presented is whether appellees' actions are barred by section 4 of the Administrative Review Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 110, par. 267) which requires that proceedings under the act be instituted 'within thirty five days from the date that a copy of the decision sought to be reviewed was served upon the party affected thereby.'

The administrative record is not before us; however, facts appearing in the pleadings and exhibits filed in the review action establish that for some time prior to June 2, 1956, Dr. Pearce was the owner of a hospital located in Saline County, and that both the doctor and his hospital appeared on the lists of physicians and hospitals permitted to participate in the commission's medical aid program. On the date named Dr. Pearce appeared before the commission's medical advisory committee and, as the result of such inquiry, was subsequently advised that his hospital's admission rate and length of hospitalization for recipients of public aid was above average, that he should comply with county and State averages in such respects, and that he should present a report of his admissions in six months. By a letter dated April 26, 1957, the commission referred to the foregoing facts and informed Pearce that the advisory committee had reviewed his report for the period of July 1, 1956, to December 31, 1956, that such committee was of the opinion no effort had been made to reduce either the number of admissions or length of hospitalization for public aid recipients, and that it was the committee's recommendation that the doctor and his hospital be dropped from the rolls of the medical aid program. Concluding, the commission's letter advised Pearce that bills rendered by the hospital or himself would not be accepted for payment effective May 15, 1957, and stated that arrangements were being made to transfer the care of public aid patients affected to other physicians and hospitals. Pearce in the meantime, on March 19, 1957, had sold his hospital to the corporate appellee for the sum of $239,995. While we are not informed as to whether the corporation automatically succeeded to the position of its predecessor on the rolls of the medical aid program, it is clear from the record that the new owner could enjoy no greater rights in such respect than did its vendor.

Approximately seven months later, on December 9, 1957, the corporate appellee addressed a letter to the commission demanding a hearing. It does not appear that Dr. Pearce made a similar request but, in any event, both Pearce and the hospital corporation appeared before the commission on January 8, 1958, at which time each petitioned for retroactive restoration to the medical aid program and was permitted to make a statement. The latter petitions were denied by the commission on February 7, 1958, its order also affirming its decision contained in the letter of April 26, 1957, and notice of such action was received by appellees on or about February 17. Thereafter, and within a period of 30 days, appellees filed separate complaints for administrative review, being the remedy afforded them by section 8-16 of the Public Assistance Code. Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 23, par. 816. While both were purportedly taken from and sought reversal of the order of February 7, 1958, the specific relief prayed for in each complaint was that the order of April 26, 1957, be stayed, and that the commission be required to restore appellees to the aid program retroactive to May 15, 1957, the cut-off date fixed by the order of April 26. Additionally, the corporation's complaint prayed that the commission be ordered to pay it all bills for hospital services rendered to public aid recipients from May 15, 1957, to the date of the complaint.

The commission did not answer the complaints but, as permitted under section 14 of the Administrative Review Act, filed motions to strike and dismiss. Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 110, par. 277; Winston v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 407 Ill. 588, 95 N.E.2d 864. Alleged as principal grounds were, first, that the retroactive relief sought was not available in a proceeding under the review act and, second, that the actions were barred under section 4 of the act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 110, par. 267) inasmuch as the complaints disclosed on their face that the final order of the commission sought to be reviewed was on or before April 26, 1957. Although the court below denied the motions, it is our opinion that either of the principal grounds advanced was sufficient to sustain them.

Section 1 of the Administrative Review Act defines an administrative decision as fellows: "Administrative decision' or 'decision' means 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.' Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 110, par. 264, emphasis supplied. Section 2, in turn, provides that the act 'shall apply to and govern every action to review judicially a final decision of any administrative agency,' (par. 265) and it is the direction of ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
63 cases
  • Nudell v. FOREST PRESERVE DIST. OF COOK
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • October 17, 2003
    ....... No. 94679. . Supreme Court of Illinois. . October 17, 2003. .          799 ... of a decision of the Civil Service Commission of Cook County (the Commission) terminating his ... plaintiff cited this court's decision in Pearce Hospital Foundation v. Illinois Public Aid ......
  • Stone St. Partners, LLC v. City of Chi. Dep't of Admin. Hearings
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 20, 2014
    ...in accordance with the power conferred on it by the City council. See, e.g., Pearce Hospital Foundation v. Illinois Public Aid Comm'n, 15 Ill.2d 301, 307, 154 N.E.2d 691 (1958).¶ 13 Although service of the notice of hearing must be sent to the registered agent, the City notes that no simila......
  • Beyer v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 27, 2019
    ...agency may not grant a rehearing or modify or alter its decisions. See, e.g. , Pearce Hospital Foundation v. Illinois Public Aid Comm'n , 15 Ill. 2d 301, 307, 154 N.E.2d 691 (1958) ; Village of Downers Grove v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board , 221 Ill. App. 3d 47, 57, 163 Ill.Dec. 670......
  • Bio-Medical Laboratories, Inc. v. Trainor
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • October 17, 1977
    ......v. . James L. TRAINOR, Director of Public Aid, Appellant. . No. 49337. . Supreme Court of Illinois. . Oct. 17, 1977. .         [68 Ill.2d ... (1972), 53 Ill.2d 16, 289 N.E.2d 421; Pearce Hospital Foundation v. Illinois Public Aid Com. ... action was brought to challenge that commission's authority to award attorney fees to successful ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT