2013 IL App (1st) 120602
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Maplewood Care, Inc. was found by the Department of Public Health to have failed to perform a proper criminal background check and to supervise a 21-year-old resident (R3) with a criminal history, which led to the rape of a 69-year-old resident (R2).
- R3’s background check was not obtained on second admission due to an incorrect birth date, so no CHAR risk analysis was created and no CHAR was incorporated into R3’s care plan.
- Maplewood admitted R3 with prior violent offenses but failed to request a proper background check, notify the Department, or incorporate a CHAR into R3’s care plan; Maplewood’s internal care plan relied on incomplete information.
- R3 later raped R2; Maplewood submitted a final report to the Department stating the intercourse was consensual, contrary to evidence.
- The administrative law judge found three Code violations (Type B 300.620(d)(3); Type A 300.1210(a); Type A 300.3240(a)); the circuit court and appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department’s findings were not clearly erroneous | Maplewood argues the findings were de novo or manifestly erroneous | Department contends findings are supported by undisputed facts and proper application of law | Not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Maplewood violated 300.620(d)(3) by admitting an identified offender without a proper background check | Maplewood claims the error was unintentional and not a strict liability issue | Failure to obtain a background check triggers per se violation and risk to residents | Yes, Maplewood violated 300.620(d)(3) (Type B) |
| Whether Maplewood’s failure to obtain a CHAR and incorporate it into care plans violated 300.1210(a) | Care plans would not have differed with a CHAR, so the violation could not be shown to cause harm | Without CHAR, care plans were insufficient for residents’ needs given R3’s history | Yes, Maplewood violated 300.1210(a) (Type A) |
Key Cases Cited
- Aurora Manor, Inc. v. Department of Public Health, 2012 IL App (1st) 112775 (2012) (review standards for administrative decisions under ARA law; deference to agency findings)
- Exelon Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 234 Ill. 2d 266 (2009) (de novo vs. deferential review on questions of law)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (2008) (mixed questions of law and fact standard of review; clearly erroneous standard for mixed questions)
- Grames v. Illinois State Police, 254 Ill. App. 3d 191 (1993) (preponderance of the evidence standard in administrative review)
- AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (2001) (standard of review for agency findings under ARA law (mixed questions))