Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Memorial Hospital of Du Page County v. State of Illinois

25 Ill. Ct. Cl. 54 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1965-01-12 No. 5197
Disposition: (No. 5197-Claimant awarded $2,624.61.) Award: $2,624.61 Agency: Department of Public Aid
Cite as: Memorial Hospital of Du Page County v. State of Illinois, 25 Ill. Ct. Cl. 54 (1965)
Legacy General 25 awarded 1960s Memorial Hospital of Du Page County v. State of Illinois 25 Ill. Ct. Cl. 54 1965-01-12 (No. 5197-Claimant awarded $2,624.61.) /opinions/v25-p0087-1/

MEMOFULHOSPITALOF Du PAGE COUNTY, ACORPORAITON, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

The hospital claimed payment for services rendered to a patient determined eligible for medical assistance, but the appropriation had lapsed before the claim was submitted. The Court awarded the sum based on a stipulation that services were properly performed and the appropriation had lapsed.

Claim type: Lapsed Appropriation

Cases cited: Rockford Memorial Hospital Association, A Corporation, vs. State of Illinois, Case No. 5165, opinion filed September 25, 1964; American Oil Company, Inc., A Corporation, vs. State of Illinois, Case No. 5109, opinion filed June 26, 1964

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. CONTRACTS-kZpSed appropriation. Where evidence showed that the only reason claim was not paid was due to the fact that, prior to the time a statement was presented, the appropriation lapsed, an award will be made.

On May 6, 1964, claimant, Memorial Hospital of Du Page County, a Corporation, presented its statement to the Department of Public Aid for hospitalization services rendered one Bridget A. Herley. Although the Department had determined that the subject patient was eligible to receive aid under its program of Assistance to the Medically Indigent Aged, it denied the claim for services on the grounds that the appropriation for the biennium had lapsed at the time the statement was received by its office.

Thereafter, on November 10, 1964, a complaint in this matter was filed in the Court of Claims. It contains a request for payment of the sum of $2,624.61, representing charges for the hospitalization services furnished said Bridget A. Herley for the period of March 21, 1963 to June 15, 1963, inc.

A written stipulation was entered into between claimant and respondent, by their respective attorneys, which, in essence, supports the position of claimant in this matter. It indicates that claimant did furnish the services to one Bridget A. Herley, and that the reasonable and equitable charge for such services was the sum of $2,624.61. The stipulation reflects the further fact that the appropriation from which payment could have been paid had lapsed prior to the time the statements were submitted. These facts are not refuted by the Department of Public Aid in the Departmental Report filed in this case on December 30, 1964.

This Court has repeatedly held that, where a contract has been (1) properly entered into; ( 2 ) services satisfactorily performed, and materials furnished in accordance with such contract; (3) proper charges made therefor; ( 4 ) adequate funds were available at the time the contracts were entered into; and, (5) the appropriation for the biennium from which such claim could have been paid had [*56] lapsed, it would enter an award for the amount due. Rockford Memorial Hospital Association, A Corporation, vs. State of Illinois, Case No. 5165, opinion filed September 25, 1964; American Oil Company, Inc., A Corporation, vs. State of Illinois, Case No. 5109, opinion filed June 26, 1964. It appears that all qualifications for an award have been met in the instant case.

Claimant, Memorial Hospital of Du Page County, a Corporation, is, therefore, hereby awarded the sum of $2,624.61.

Official volume 25 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion between: August 25, 1964–November 17, 1966)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.