KETURAH HALIMA, Claimant, v . THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant, a former state employee, alleged she was discharged for filing a workers' compensation claim. The court dismissed the claim because she failed to exhaust administrative remedies and did not appeal to the circuit court under the Administrative Review Law.
Statutes cited: Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 3-101
Cases cited: Rockford Memorial Hospital Association v. State (1968), 26 Ill. Ct. Cl. 215, 218; Hi-Line Construction Corporation vs. State of Illinois, 21 C.C.R. 189; Denton vs. State of Illinois, 22 C.C.R.
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- NEIL F. HARTICAN; Attorney General (E RIN M. O’CONNELL, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.
- JuRIsolcnoN-remedy in court of general jurisdiction precludes jurisdictiorr of Court of Claims. When a Claimant has an adequate remedy in a court of general jurisdiction, the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction. STATE EMPLOYEES’ BACK SALARY CLAiMs-wrongful discharge-remedy under Administrative Review Law not pursued-chim dismissed. A former State employee’s claim that she was wrongfully discharged from State employment because she filed and pursued a worker’s compensation claim was dismissed, since the record showed that the Claimant initially brought her discharge before the Civil Service Commission, but failed to pursue her appeal rights under the Administrative Review Law following an adverse ruling by the Commission, and the existence of an adequate remedy in the courts of general jurisdiction negated the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims to consider the matter. ’
The Claimant, a former State employee, alleges that she was discharged from State employment on August 17, 1983, because she filed and pursued a workers’ compensation claim.
The Claimant brought the matter of her discharge before the Civil Service Commission. A full hearing was held, and a final decision was entered on or about March 10, 1984. The Claimant did not prevail, and did not appeal to the circuit court as per the Administrative Review Law. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 3-101.)
The Claimant filed in this Court on June 4, 1987, seeking a full hearing.
This claim is similar to that of Rockford Memorial Hospital Association v . State (1968), 26 111. Ct. C1. 215, 218. In that case, the Claimant did not appeal a ruling of the public aid commission to the circuit court as set out in the Administrative Review Law, but sought a new trial in this Court. The Court stated: “There is no evidence that the remedies set out in the above statutory provisions were ever pursued. Not only has Claimant failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, but the Act specifically provides for final review by the Circuit Court. It has been an established rule of this Court that, where the Claimant has an adequate remedy in a court of general jurisdiction, the Court of Cleims has no iurisdiction. l B 6 F Hi-Line Construction Corporation vs. State of Illin&, 21 C.C.R.‘189; Denton vs. State of Illinois, 22 C.C.R. a).”
After careful consideration, this Court concludes that Rockf ord Memorial Hospital Association, supra, correctly states the law governing the present claim.
[*195] To hold otherwise would allow Claimants who are unhappy with the results of trials before administrative agencies to have an immediate second trial in this Court as a matter of right. We do-not believe that a Claimant’s right to two trials and having the State defend the same claim twice is the ‘intent of the statutory scheme, nor the practice under it; rather the intent and practice is that trial is held before the administrative agency and review can be had in the circuit and appellate courts, and this Court, acting on behalf of the General Assembly, examines any awards made prior to their payment.
It is therefore ordered that the motion of the Respondent to dismiss is granted and this claim is dismissed.