CHILDREN’SMEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
Case summary
Children's Memorial Hospital sought $787,574.24 for medical services provided to an inmate. The Court dismissed the claim with prejudice because the claimant failed to exhaust its remedies against Correction Management Services, Inc., as required by the Court of Claims Act.
Statutes cited: 705 ILCS 505/25
Cases cited: Lyons v. State of Illinois, 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 268 (1981); Davis v. State of Illinois, 49 Ill. Ct. Cl. 93 (1992)
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Exhaustion of Remedies - Medical provider’s complaint against the Illinois Department of Corrections seeking compensation for services rendered to an inmate under a medical provider contract was dismissed for failure to exhaust remedies against the company that contracted with IDOC to provide and manage medical care for inmates housed in Illinois correction facilities.
- Exhaustion of Remedies - Section 25 of the Court of Claims Act requires any person who files a claim in the Court of Claims, before seeking final determination of his or her claim, to exhaust all other remedies and sources of recovery whether administrative or judicial.
- Exhaustion of Remedies - The language of Section 25 of the Court of Claims Act and Section 790.60 of the Court of Claims Regulations quite clearly make the exhaustion of remedies mandatory to seeking recovery before this Court and the fact that Claimant can no longer pursue those remedies cannot be a defense to the exhaustion requirement.
- Exhaustion of Remedies - Failure to Timely File Against Alternate Source of
- Recovery - Where Claimant cannot exhaust its remedies against another source of recovery due to Claimant’s own failure to timely pursue an action against the alternative source, Claimant’s action against the State must be dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust remedies.
ORDER
STORINO, J.
This medical provider contract claim brought by Children’s Memorial Hospital (“Claimant”) against the Illinois Department of [*203] Corrections (“IDOC”) seeks $787,574.24 for medical services provided to an inmate of the IDOC, and is before this Court on Respondent’s motion to dismiss filed on February 3, 2005. For the following reasons, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted and this Claimant’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
Nature and History of the Claim
This claim, which was filed on March 15, 2001, is a contract action by Claimant against IDOC to recover for services provided and billed. The Claimant alleges that IDOC engaged it to treat one of IDOC’s inmates, Walter Johnson, whom it hospitalized and treated for an extensive period of time. IDOC moved to dismiss the action based upon Claimant’s failure to exhaust its remedies against Correction Management Services, Inc., (“CMS”), the company which contracted with IDOC to provide and manage medical care for inmates housed in Illinois correction facilities. On May 8, 2002, this Court held that exhaustion of alternative source remedies was required and ordered that Claimant’s complaint be placed on the general continuance calendar to allow for Claimant to exhaust its remedies against CMS.
Accordingly, Claimant filed a complaint against CMS which was heard before the United States District Court Judge Suzanne B. Conlon of the Northern District of Illinois. Pursuant to CMS’s motion for summary judgment, on January 9, 2003, Judge Conlon issued a Memorandum, Opinion and Order, dismissing Claimant’s complaint with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations.
Thereafter, on July 12, 2004, this matter was removed from the general continuance calendar and placed back on this Court’s active calendar for further proceedings. On February 3, 2005, IDOC filed a second motion to dismiss arguing for dismissal based upon Claimant’s failure to exhaust its remedies and further arguing for dismissal pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata. Claimant filed its response to said motion to dismiss on March 24, 2005.
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss; Claimant’s Response
IDOC’s motion specifically argues for dismissal with prejudice on the basis that Claimant has failed to exhaust, and cannot exhaust, its remedies against CMS, which is a mandatory requirement before seeking a final determination of its claim before this Court of Claims. Claimant also argues that the findings articulated in Judge Conlon’s Memorandum Opinions and Order, dismissing Claimant’s claim against CMS, bars Claimant’s action against IDOC in the present case pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata.
Claimant’s response attacks IDOC’s motion by arguing that exhaustion of remedies is not mandatory and it had no obligation to exhaust its remedies against CMS as it was not in privity of contract with CMS. Claimant also argues against dismissal pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata [*204] by asserting that the granting of the motion for summary judgment does not rise to the level of adjudication on the merits, rendering the doctrine inapplicable.
Legal Analysis
Exhaustion of Remedies
Section 25 of the Illinois Court of Claims Act provides as follows:
Sec. 505/25. Exhaustion of other remedies for recovery - Exception. Any person who files a claim before the Court shall, before seeking final determination of his or her claim exhaust all other remedies and sources of recovery whether administrative or judicial, except that failure to file or pursue actions against State employees, acting within the scope of their employment, shall not be a defense. (705 ILCS 505/25).
Section 790.60 of the Court of Claims Regulations also provides, in pertinent part:
Section 790.60. Exhaustion of Remedies. As required by Section 25 of the Court of Claims Act [705 ILCS 505/25], the claimant shall, before seeking final determination of his claim before the Court of Claims exhaust all other remedies, whether administrative, legal or equitable, against all other sources of recovery for the injury or damages sought to be recovered by the claim, provided that no frivolous or unreasonable action is required to be brought against any third party in order to comply with this exhaustion of remedies requirement. (74 Ill. Adm. Code 790.60).
The language of Section 25 of the Court of Claims Act and Section 790.60 of the Court of Claims Regulations quite clearly make the exhaustion of remedies mandatory to seeking recovery before this Court. 705 ILCS 505/25; 74 Ill. Adm. Code 790.60; Lyons v. State of Illinois, 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 268 (1981). The fact that Claimant can no longer pursue those remedies cannot be a defense to the exhaustion requirement. Lyons, 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 268.
Claimant’s argument that the exhaustion requirement is not mandatory is without merit, for the plain language of the Court of Claims Act illustrates that exhaustion is indeed required, “provided that no frivolous or unreasonable action is required to be brought against any third party in order to comply with this exhaustion of remedies requirement.” 74 Ill. Adm. Code 790.60; cf. Davis v. State of Illinois, 49 Ill. Ct. Cl. 93 (1992) (exhaustion requirement does not require Claimant to file frivolous or unfounded actions). The fact that Claimant’s complaint against CMS was dismissed for Claimant’s own failure to file the complaint in a timely fashion does not render said action frivolous or unreasonable and thereby exempt from the exhaustion requirement. In fact, this Court in deciding the prior motion to dismiss in the instant case, has determined that a reasonable and alternative [*205] remedy did exist against CMS by mandating Claimant to exhaust relief against CMS.
Accordingly, where a Claimant cannot exhaust its remedies against another source of recovery due to Claimant’s own failure to timely pursue an action against the alternative source, Claimant’s action against the State must be dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust remedies. Lyons v. State of Illinois, 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 268 (1981).
Since the exhaustion of remedies requirement disposes of Claimant’s claim in its entirety, this Court need not address Respondent’s motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of res judicata.
Conclusion
It is hereby ordered that Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted and Claimant’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice.