Grady v. Illinois Department of Healthcare & Family Services
67 N.E.3d 357
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Grady, a participant in the Home Services Plan (Traumatic Brain Injury Medicaid Waiver), received a June 2014 reassessment granting 155 monthly service hours.
- She administratively appealed to increase hours; an administrative hearing was held before a Department of Human Services (DHS) hearing officer, and the written decision identified DHS as the issuing agency and was signed/adopted by DHS secretary Michelle R.B. Saddler.
- Grady filed suit for judicial review in Cook County but named the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (DHFS) and its director Julie Hamos as defendants, not DHS or its secretary.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under section 2-619 for failure to name the agency that issued the decision; the trial court dismissed with prejudice and denied leave to amend, citing Fourth District authority (Mannheim).
- On appeal, the First District considered whether the Administrative Review Law requires naming the actual issuing agency and whether the plaintiff was entitled to amend under 735 ILCS 5/3-107(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which agency must be named under the Administrative Review Law? | DHFS has statutory power to decide Medicaid eligibility, so naming DHFS satisfied the statute. | The statute requires naming the agency that actually issued the challenged decision (DHS here). | The court held the agency that issued the challenged administrative decision (DHS) must be named. |
| Does Gillmore require naming DHFS when it has statutory authority? | Gillmore shows that "power under the law" focuses on statutory authority, so DHFS may be the correct defendant. | Gillmore is distinguishable because here only one agency issued the decision. | The court distinguished Gillmore and declined to apply its analysis; it did not resolve which agency had ultimate statutory authority because DHS clearly issued the decision. |
| Was plaintiff entitled to amend under 735 ILCS 5/3-107(a) after failing to name DHS? | Subsection 3-107(a) mandates the court grant 35 days to name and serve omitted agencies/parties; Grady should be allowed to amend. | Cited Mannheim: amendment is limited and not available unless the agency head or agency was originally named per the second paragraph. | The court rejected Mannheim, interpreting the third paragraph to require the court to grant 35 days to add omitted agencies/parties; Grady may amend. |
| Was the dismissal with prejudice appropriate? | Dismissal with prejudice was improper because amendment should have been allowed. | Dismissal proper because wrong parties were named and Mannheim controls. | Reversed: dismissal with prejudice was improper; remanded to permit Grady 35 days to amend and serve DHS. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gillmore v. Illinois Department of Human Services, 218 Ill. 2d 302 (distinguishing which agency must be named when multiple agencies share or approve a decision)
- Rodriguez v. Sheriff’s Merit Commission, 218 Ill. 2d 342 (standard of review for motions under section 2-619 is de novo)
- Crittenden v. Cook County Commission of Human Rights, 2013 IL 114876 (noting a plaintiff may challenge an agency’s authority to render a decision by naming the proper agency)