White v. Department of Employment Sec.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-92-1000,1-92-1000 |
| Citation | 202 Ill.Dec. 108,264 Ill.App.3d 851,637 N.E.2d 647 |
| Parties | , 202 Ill.Dec. 108 Karen WHITE, k/n/a Karen Mahon, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Loleta Didrickson, Director; Board of Review, Bruce Barnes, Chairman; and Michael Reese Hospital, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Loyola University Community Law Center, of Chicago (Lewis Check, of counsel), for appellant.
Roland W. Burris, Atty. Gen., Rosalyn B. Kaplan, Sol. Gen., of Chicago (Claudia E. Sainsot, of counsel), for appellees.
Plaintiff Karen White brought this action on administrative review from a decision by the Board of Review (Board) of the Illinois Department of Employment Security (Department) denying her unemployment benefits. The trial court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding plaintiff filed her complaint for administrative review after the 35-day jurisdictional period had expired. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 110, par. 3-103.) Plaintiff appeals on grounds that her complaint was timely filed 35 days after her attorney received notice of the Board's final decision.
We reverse the trial court and remand this matter to the Board for a rehearing on the claim adjudicator's decision to deny plaintiff unemployment benefits.
After plaintiff was terminated from her employment at Michael Reese Hospital, she filed a claim pro se for unemployment insurance benefits with the Department which a claims adjudicator denied on August 20, 1990. Plaintiff appealed the decision to a referee who scheduled a hearing for October 10, 1990. Plaintiff was unable to attend the hearing, and the referee rescheduled for October 26, 1990.
Although plaintiff's former employer appeared at the hearing, plaintiff, allegedly due to the Department's failure to notify her of the rescheduled hearing date, did not appear.
On October 30 the referee affirmed the claims adjudicator's decision finding plaintiff ineligible for unemployment benefits on grounds of misconduct as authorized by section 602(A) of the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 48, par. 432), and mailed a copy of its decision to plaintiff's last known address.
Plaintiff retained the Loyola University Community Law Center (counsel) to pursue her appeal pursuant to Department regulations which provide:
(56 Ill.Adm.Code § 2720.5(b) (1989).)
Counsel notified the referee by letter dated November 13, 1990 of its representation and attempts to reschedule the original hearing regarding plaintiff's appeal, unaware that the hearing had been rescheduled and a determination reached.
On December 5 counsel mailed a written request for a rehearing, claiming neither it nor plaintiff received notice of the October 26 rehearing date until November 20 when the referee called counsel's office to inform it of the rescheduled hearing and attendant determination.
On December 12 the referee mailed to plaintiff's last known address, but not to counsel, a letter denying the rehearing request since the motion was filed outside the 30-day period to appeal referee decisions. See 56 Ill.Adm.Code § 2720.300 (1991).
On January 16, 1991 counsel requested that the Department issue a decision regarding the December 5, 1990 request for a rehearing.
Approximately one week later counsel received the referee's October 30, 1990 decision dismissing plaintiff's appeal and December 12, 1990 decision denying the rehearing request.
On February 22 plaintiff appealed the referee's decisions to the Board. Counsel received a "Notice of the Pending Appeal" from the Board approximately two weeks later.
On May 10 the Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction since plaintiff failed to file the appeal within 30 days from October 30, 1990, and mailed a copy of its decision to plaintiff's last known address. Department regulations regarding Board decisions provide:
(56 Ill.Adm.Code § 2720.335 (1989).)
Counsel did not receive notice of the Board's decision until June 27, 1991, and only after contacting the Board to inquire about the status of plaintiff's appeal.
On August 1, 1991, plaintiff filed a complaint seeking administrative review of the Board's decision which averred: (1) she never received notice of any hearing other than the October 10, 1990 hearing; and (2) she received notice of the referee's decisions finding her ineligible for unemployment compensation and denying her petition for rehearing on January 25, 1991, after the 30-day period for appealing referee decisions expired.
The Board moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to section 3-103 of the Illinois Administrative Review Act (Act) which states:
"Every action to review a final administrative decision shall be commenced by the filing of a complaint and the issuance of summons within 35 days from the date that a copy of the decision sought to be reviewed was served upon the party affected thereby." (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 110, par. 3-103.)
Attached to the motion was the affidavit of Ralph Elliott, the Board's Executive Director, which essentially stated that the Department followed internal procedure for mailing its decision to plaintiff on May 10, 1991 to provide her with notice and an opportunity to file a complaint for administrative review before the 35-day jurisdictional period expired.
Plaintiff responded to the motion and attached her affidavit which stated she received mail at an address different from where she resided until January 1991 and affirmed her assertions in the complaint regarding the Board's alleged failure to provide her with the requisite notice. Upon defendant's motion, the trial court struck this exhibit and others for lack of relevancy.
The trial court granted the Board's motion dismissing plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and this appeal followed.
Plaintiff contends her complaint for administrative review was timely filed on August 1, 1991 since the Board failed to notify counsel of its final decision until June 27, 1991. Plaintiff thus interprets section 2720.335 of the Act (56 Ill.Adm.Code § 2720.335 (1989)) to require the Board to mail its decisions to the unemployment insurance applicant and her designated representative or merely the representative, assuming the applicant has complied with section 2720.5(b) regarding designation of agents to receive service. 56 Ill.Adm.Code § 2720.5(b) (1989).
The Board contends section 2720.335 allows but does not require service upon the applicant's designated representative; i.e., the applicant or her designated representative. Hence, mailing its final decision to plaintiff's last known address on May 10, 1991 effectuated service to commence the statutory 35-day period for seeking administrative review expiring June 14, 1991, approximately six weeks prior to the date plaintiff filed the complaint.
While an administrative agency's factual findings are considered prima facie correct and will not be set aside unless against the manifest weight of the evidence, a reviewing court is not bound to give the same deference to an agency's conclusions of law and statutory construction since a reviewing court must exercise independent review and judgment. Mitchell v. Illinois Department of Revenue (1992), 230 Ill.App.3d 795, 798, 172 Ill.Dec. 752, 596 N.E.2d 31; Kankakeeland Community Action Program, Inc. v. Department of Commerce & Community Affairs (1990), 197 Ill.App.3d 1067, 1077, 145 Ill.Dec. 507, 557 N.E.2d 277; Russell v. Department of Central Management Services (1990), 196 Ill.App.3d 641, 644, 143 Ill.Dec. 529, 554 N.E.2d 464; Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Human Rights Comm'n (1989), 190 Ill.App.3d 1036, 1046, 138 Ill.Dec. 332, 547 N.E.2d 499.
In interpreting an agency rule, courts apply the same rules of construction used in construing statutes. (John Sexton Contractors Co. v. Pollution Control Board (1990), 201 Ill.App.3d 415, 424, 146 Ill.Dec. 888, 558 N.E.2d 1222; Kneip v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners (1986), 150 Ill.App.3d 870, 872-73, 104 Ill.Dec. 173, 502 N.E.2d 436.) Each provision must be construed in connection with every other provision to produce a harmonious whole. (Kneip, 150 Ill.App.3d at 872-73, 104 Ill.Dec. 173, 502 N.E.2d 436.) Here, we consider the notice requirements of section 2720.335 in light of the agency provisions of section 2720.5(b) to determine whom the Board must notify of its decisions.
Section 2720.335 makes explicit reference to section 2720.5(b) which allows an applicant to designate an agent to receive her notices and decisions by filing the agent's name and address with the Department. After an applicant properly designates an agent and the Department acknowledges the designation, until the Department receives notice from the applicant that the agency relationship no longer exists, the Board's service of notices and decisions upon the agent constitutes service upon the applicant. Board of Education v. Adelman (1985), 137 Ill.App.3d 965, 970, 92 Ill.Dec. 773, 485 N.E.2d 584; see Massoud v. Board of Education (1981), 97 Ill.App.3d 65, 69, 52 Ill.Dec. 555, 422 N.E.2d 236 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Trustees of University of Illinois v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Bd.
... ... v. Department of Commerce & Community Affairs (1990), 197 Ill.App.3d 1067, 1074, 145 ... attorney has actually communicated such knowledge to the client"); White v. Department of Employment Security (1994), 264 Ill.App.3d 851, 202 ... ...
-
Durbin v. Gilmore
... ... In this action, plaintiff, a person committed to the Department of Corrections (DOC), claimed to have been denied his rights to due ... with every other provision to produce a harmonious whole.' White v. Department of Employment Security, 264 Ill.App.3d 851, 854 [202 ... ...
-
Brown v. Chicago Park Dist.
... ... , which was not transcribed, plaintiff was terminated from employment with the Park District ... Plaintiff timely appealed the ... plaintiff and an unidentified woman in a Park District building with white powder on a table between them. Greene caught the woman, but plaintiff ... the administration building, and two men from the investigation department. Plaintiff could not recall the name of the person with whom he spoke, ... ...
-
Thompson v. The Dep't Of Employment Sec.
...399 Ill.App.3d 393928 N.E.2d 528340 Ill.Dec. 529 ... Mario K. THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.The DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY; Director, the Department of Employment Security; the Board of Review of the Department of Employment Security; and U-Haul ... 820 ILCS 405/801(A) (West 2008). The 30 days are calculated from the date of service ... White v. Illinois Department of Employment Security, 264 Ill.App.3d 851, 857, 202 Ill.Dec. 108, 637 N.E.2d 647 (1994). Service is complete by mailing to ... ...