2022 IL App (2d) 210234
Ill. App. Ct.
2022
Read the full case

Background

  • Plaintiff Northwestern Illinois Area Agency on Aging (AAA) challenged multiple Department on Aging (Department) policies as invalid administrative "rules" under the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act (APA/Act), seeking declaratory relief.
  • Core challenged materials: the 12-section Area Agencies on Aging Policies and Procedures Manual (Manual); section 1000 (Monitoring Policy); an August 5, 2020 COVID-19 "Tracking" e-mail (and spreadsheet); an Ombudsman-issued Conflict-of-Interest Form/memo; a July 2019 Medicaid Application/Redetermination Policy (Medicaid Policy); and a July 2020 ROS (Report of Substantiation) memorandum.
  • Defendant moved to dismiss under combined 735 ILCS 5/2-615 and 2-619 (via 2-619.1), arguing untimeliness, statutory exceptions (agency/contract/federally required rules), that many items are standardized forms or internal guidance, and lack of standing for some claims.
  • Trial court dismissed portions of the original complaint (including Transparency Policy) and later dismissed all six counts of the first amended complaint with prejudice (counts I–VI), denying joinder of the Ombudsman; plaintiff appealed.
  • On appeal the court reviewed de novo and affirmed: it held many challenged items were either untimely, not "rules" under the APA (e.g., standardized forms/internal guidance), or outside plaintiff’s standing.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
1) Whether the Manual (entire) is an invalid rule Manual is a rule that must be adopted under the APA; whole Manual regulates AAAs Plaintiff failed to identify specific provisions as rules; most Manual sections predate 2‑year limitations Dismissed: most sections untimely; pleading defective for failing to specify challenged provisions (except section 1000)
2) Whether Monitoring Policy (§1000) required APA rulemaking or is exempt Department exercised discretion and altered federal requirements, so APA applies Much of §1000 merely restates/implements federal/state monitoring duties; many provisions are federally required (no discretion) Dismissed: provisions reflect federal/state requirements or internal guidance; section 5.02 exemption applies
3) Whether Tracking E‑mail/spreadsheet is a rule Requiring tracking imposes new duties and reflects discretionary policy-making Email merely prescribes a standardized form to collect data for federal/state health/monitoring needs Dismissed: not a rule — compliance was data collection tied to federal/state requirements and prescription of a standardized form
4) Whether Conflict‑of‑Interest Form/memo is a rule; whether Ombudsman must be joined Form imposes duties (annual disclosures) and Department/Ombudsman lacked authority without APA process; Ombudsman is necessary party Federal law requires reporting/identifying organizational conflicts; form is a standardized prescription; Department adequately represents Ombudsman; joinder unnecessary Dismissed: form falls within federal-required exception and is a standardized form; denial to join Ombudsman affirmed (record inadequate to disturb)
5) Whether Medicaid Policy applies to plaintiff (standing) Plaintiff oversees Community Care Program and thus has standing to challenge policy Policy is directed to Care Coordination Units (CCUs); plaintiff not subject to or injured by it Dismissed for lack of standing: plaintiff did not allege direct or imminent injury
6) Whether ROS Memorandum applies to plaintiff (standing) Plaintiff’s oversight role gives standing to challenge ROS guidance Memorandum directed at Adult Protective Services providers; plaintiff not bound or injured Dismissed for lack of standing: no direct injury alleged
7) Whether dismissal of original count re: Transparency Policy was improper Court improperly considered Department affidavit; facts should be construed for plaintiff Department submitted verification showing policy was never implemented; plaintiff produced no counteraffidavit Forfeited on appeal (amended pleadings) and, on merits, dismissal proper under 2‑619 after plaintiff failed to rebut affidavits

Key Cases Cited

  • Department of Revenue v. Civil Service Comm’n, 357 Ill. App. 3d 352 (Ill. App. 2005) (describes three-step APA rulemaking process)
  • Weyland v. Manning, 309 Ill. App. 3d 542 (Ill. App. 2000) (procedural steps and JCAR review explained)
  • Filliung v. Adams, 387 Ill. App. 3d 40 (Ill. App. 2008) (two‑year limitations for APA procedural challenges)
  • Foxcroft Townhome Owners Ass’n v. Hoffman Rosner Corp., 96 Ill. 2d 150 (Ill. 1983) (amended complaint that omits prior claims generally abandons them)
  • Kedzie & 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge, 156 Ill. 2d 112 (Ill. 1993) (requirements for affidavits and burden‑shifting on 2‑619 motions)
  • Cwikla v. Sheir, 345 Ill. App. 3d 23 (Ill. App. 2003) (affirmative matter under section 2‑619 negates the claim)
  • Pre‑School Owners Ass’n of Illinois, Inc. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 119 Ill. 2d 268 (Ill. 1988) (standing requires direct or imminent injury from challenged regulation)
  • Pooh‑Bah Enterprises, Inc. v. County of Cook, 232 Ill. 2d 463 (Ill. 2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive a 2‑615 motion)
Read the full case