2019 IL 124019
Ill.2020Background
- Helen Sauvageau, a Lakewood Nursing resident, stopped paying fees; Lakewood served a notice of involuntary discharge in Oct. 2013.
- Sauvageau requested an administrative hearing (Nov. 1, 2013) and applied for Medicaid; the application was denied Jan. 13, 2014.
- Prehearing in Feb. 2014: Lakewood moved to dismiss, arguing the Department lost authority because section 3-411 requires a hearing within 10 days; the ALJ denied the motion.
- Hearing occurred Mar. 24, 2014; the Department’s final decision (May 6, 2014) approved the discharge effective 30 days after the final ruling; Sauvageau left May 29, 2014.
- Lakewood sought administrative review arguing the 10-day hearing and 14-day decision limits in 210 ILCS 45/3-411 are mandatory; the circuit court held the limits are directory, the appellate court reversed, and the Illinois Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed the circuit court: section 3-411 is directory, so the Department retained authority to hold the hearing and approve the discharge as it did.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3-411's timing (hearing within 10 days; decision within 14 days) is mandatory or directory | §3-411's phrase "not later than 10 days" is negative language and therefore mandatory; failure to comply deprives Dept. of authority | Time limits are directory: §3-411 has no consequence for noncompliance, the Act's procedures and federal due-process requirements may require more time to protect residents | Directory. No negative-language consequence in the statute and a mandatory rule could harm resident rights and conflict with federal due-process requirements. Dept. retained authority to proceed after 10 days |
| Whether Dept. could approve the discharge 30 days after its final ruling under §3-413 and related provisions | The Dept. lacked authority to approve the notice 30 days after the final ruling if §3-411 timing is mandatory | §3-413 and procedural provisions permit the timing the Dept. used; federal rules and incorporated procedures may necessitate additional time | The Dept.'s action was permissible; §3-413 did not bar approval 30 days after the final decision (circuit court affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jennings, 3 Ill. 2d 125 (establishes when procedural statutory commands are treated as mandatory)
- People v. Robinson, 217 Ill. 2d 43 (mandatory consequence language indicates legislative intent)
- In re M.I., 2013 IL 113776 (presumption that procedural commands are directory)
- Harris v. Manor Healthcare Corp., 111 Ill. 2d 350 (background on the Nursing Home Care Act's purpose)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (federal due-process standard: meaningful time and manner to be heard)
- Frances House, Inc. v. Dep't of Public Health, 269 Ill. App. 3d 426 (appellate decision treating similar phrasing as negative language; discussed and limited by the Supreme Court)