SHERMAN WEST COURT v. Arnold
944 N.E.2d 467
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Fessenden's father was a resident at Sherman West Court; she filed a Nursing Home Care Act complaint alleging inadequate stroke recognition and emergency care.
- IDPH investigated and determined the complaint unfounded; Fessenden requested a hearing, and plaintiff appeared in front of a designated hearing officer.
- Before the hearing, IDPH and Fessenden settled; IDPH agreed to reinvestigate and Fessenden withdrew her hearing request; plaintiff noted a scrivener's error in the order.
- The hearing officer advised, and Deputy Director Bell issued an order adopting the agreement and reinvestigating the complaint, labeling it a final administrative decision under the NHCA and the Administrative Review Law.
- Plaintiff sought judicial review; the circuit court affirmed; the appellate court addresses subject matter jurisdiction and finality of the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is IDPH's reinvestigation order a final administrative decision subject to review? | Order terminates proceedings and is a final decision. | No final order since no hearing and proceedings not terminated. | Not final; not subject to review. |
| Did a 'hearing' occur under the Nursing Home Care Act to support judicial review? | Hearing occurred with evidence and findings. | No hearing occurred; actions were preliminary or legal-argument only. | No hearing occurred; order not reviewable. |
| If non-final, is standing to object to the settlement relevant to review? | Plaintiff had standing to object. | Standing is lacking since not the complainant; cannot object. | Question not reached; subject matter jurisdiction dictates dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.W., 232 Ill.2d 408 (2009) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised on appeal)
- Searles v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 369 Ill.App.3d 500 (2006) (finality and termination of proceedings under 3-101)
- In re A Minor, 127 Ill.2d 247 (1989) (substance governs finality of orders)
- Marsh v. Evangelical Covenant Church of Hinsdale, 138 Ill.2d 458 (1990) (finality of orders for appeal purposes)