Williams v. State of Illinois

OPINION

Claimant BrenAda Williams brings this lapsed appropriation in the amount of $17,766.51 for services she rendered caring for her son, Rodney Williams, through the Department of Human Services’ (“DHS”) Home Based Support Services program (“HBS”) for Division of Mental Health and Division of Developmental Disabilities participants. This matter was consolidated with Smith v. State of Illinois, case number 19- CC-1057, through which Claimant Kaninia Smith brings her own lapsed appropriation claim in the amount of $6,000 for services rendered caring for Rodney Williams - Kaninia’ s brother - through DHS’ HBS.

Procedural History

Claimants BrenAda Williams and Kaninia Smith (“Claimants”) filed their respective claims on November 19, 2018.

Respondent initially stipulated to the entry of the full award of $17,766.51 for Claimant BrenAda Williams, but subsequently moved to withdraw the stipulation and filed a motion for summary judgment granting an award of only $3,220.75. on June 26, 2019, this Court granted Respondent’s motion and awarded $3,220.75 to Claimant BrenAda Williams. Claimant filed a motion to reconsider the Court’s Order, which this Court granted on April 29, 2021.

[*169] Similarly, Respondent initially stipulated to the entry of the full award of $6,000 for Claimant Kaninia Smith on February 21, 2019, but subsequently moved to withdraw the stipulation and filed a motion for summary judgment denying the claim. Claimant filed a Motion to Reconsider the Court’s Order, which the Court granted on February 6, 2020.

The Court subsequently consolidated the claims, and this hearing followed.

Factual Background

A hearing on the merits of the claim was held. The parties stipulated that Claimant BrenAda Williams had received partial payment of her claim from Respondent, and that the remaining claimed amount at issue is $10,983.51. The parties also stipulated to the admission of Respondent’s Claim Analysis as to BrenAda Williams’ claim.

As to Kaninia Smith’s claim, the parties stipulated to the admission of Respondent’s Claim Analysis except for wherein Respondent asserted that a partial payment had been made. Ms. Smith asserts she did not receive any check from Respondent for any part of her claim and that her entire $6,000 claim is still owing. Respondent’s Claim Analysis as to Kaninia Smith was admitted, and the record was left open for 30 days for Respondent to file a copy of any check issued to Ms. Smith in partial satisfaction of her claim.

Testimony was heard from both claimants. Ms. Williams testified that she has participated in this State of Illinois program - with Thrive Counseling as her designated HBS facility for submission of her required documents - for many years. Ms. Williams’ practice is to immediately complete and sign her time sheets, and then submit a couple months at a time, personally making the trip to Thrive Counseling every two to three months. Thrive Counseling is located in Oak Park, Illinois. Claimant submits her time sheets for the HBS program by traveling to the Thrive Counseling location and personally handing them to a receptionist at the front desk. She is not permitted to give them to anyone else at Thrive Counseling and does not have contact with anyone else at Thrive [*170] Counseling. Claimant would prefer to be permitted to submit her timesheets directly to the State of Illinois, but is required to go through Thrive Counseling.

Claimant followed her practice of timely submission for all of the time sheets at issue, ensuring that she was well within the 180-day deadline. Prior to submission, Ms. Williams made a copy to keep for her own records. Claimant testified that the copy of her time sheets included in Exhibit E of Respondent’s Claim Analysis for her claim are accurate copies of the time sheets she timely submitted to Thrive Counseling for payment.

Payment from the State of Illinois does not go through Thrive Counseling, but goes directly to Claimant. When Claimant did not receive timely payment for her services for the time frame at issue, she began following up with Thrive Counseling sometime in 2017. In addition to following up in-person with the receptionist at Thrive Counseling, Claimant followed up with phone calls. She learned that the person at Thrive Counseling who handled HBS matters was on maternity leave. She continued to follow up and eventually a new person became the contact at Thrive Counseling for HBS matters. This replacement person eventually passed away, and still Claimant had not been paid.

Claimant testified that she was not asked to resubmit her original, timely time sheets and she does not know how the later-dated time sheets came to be. She notes that while her signature appears on them, the forms are filled out by someone else, as evidenced by the different handwriting on the later-dated sheets, including a lack of proper capitalization of the A in her own first name of BrenAda. She does not know when the Thrive Counseling submitted her documents to the State of Illinois for payment, but emphasizes that she submitted each of her time sheets to Thrive Counseling well within 180 days of providing services.

Kaninia Smith testified that Rodney Williams is her brother, and that she participates in the HBS program. She also submits her time sheets in-person to Thrive Counseling in Oak Park. Her practice is to complete her time sheets up to three months at a time, sign them, and submit them within a week or two after signing them. She makes sure to submit them within 90 days of providing services. She confirmed that the copy of the time sheets included in Exhibit D of Respondent’s Claim Analysis of her claim are her accurate, timely submitted time sheets. Ms. Smith testified as to the transitioning of various individuals at Thrive Counseling during the time period at issue and does not [*171] know that she submitted her documents on a timely basis to Thrive Counseling.

Respondent called no witnesses, but submitted its Claim Analysis in case 19-CC1055 as Respondent’s Exhibit 1 and its Claim Analysis in case 19-CC-1057 as Respondent's Exhibit 2.

Argument

Claimants argue that they timely submitted their timesheets to Thrive Counseling and therefore should be paid for their services. Claimants further argue that they have no control over when Thrive Counseling submits their documents for payment to DHS, and should not be penalized if Thrive Counseling did not timely submit them.

Respondent relies upon its Claim Analysis for each case, and defers to the Court.

Analysis

This matter involves lapsed appropriation claims, the payment of which is governed by Illinois Administrative Code Title 89, Chapter 1, Sub chapter d, Section 140.20. Respondent set out the amount of designated funds available to pay lapsed claims for the time period at issue in its Revised Departmental Report and there is no allegation by Respondent that insufficient lapsed funds remained to pay these claims. The sole issue is whether these claims were timely submitted within 180 days of services rendered, as required by Section 140.20(c). 89 Ill. Admin. Code: Chapter 1, Sub chapter d § 140.20(c).

Claimants testified credibly as to their detailed procedures, including timing, of completing each month’s time sheets and personally submitting them to Thrive Counseling. Claimant BrenAda Williams and Claimant Kaninia Smith had slightly different practices of when they submitted them, both of which resulted in time sheets being submitted to Thrive Counseling within 90 days from the time of service, at most. This would have provided Thrive Counseling another 90 days, or more, to process and submit the time sheets to DHS. Claimants testified as to following up both in-person and by telephone with Thrive Counseling and to the multiple changes in personnel there.

[*172] Claimants kept their own copies of time sheets submitted, which were smart, logical actions to ensure they were paid the proper amount for their services. For purposes of this claim, that also permitted Claimants to present copies of their timely-submitted time sheets to the Court. The Court has before it time sheets bearing timely-dated signatures, and a second set of time sheets produced by DHS that bear dates later than 180 days from the dates of service. Given the credible testimony of Claimants including specific details of their submission procedures and follow-up with Thrive Counseling, the Court finds that Claimants timely submitted time sheets to Thrive Counseling. It appears Thrive Counseling did not timely submit those time sheets to the State of Illinois during the time of personnel transitioning at Thrive Counseling. Rather, it appears Thrive Counseling submitted a replacement set of time sheets to the State of Illinois, most of which were beyond the 180-day limit for payment. While the Administrative Code does not specifically contemplate whether submitting time sheets to a State-required intermediary is sufficient to meet the timeliness requirement, Claimants persuasively argue they do not have the option of submitting invoices directly to the State of Illinois but are required to go through the intermediary of Thrive Counseling. Further, Respondent concedes that if the Court accepts the earlier-dated time sheets submitted by Claimant, the documents are timely and should be paid. Respondent’s Claim Analysis contains the lapsed appropriation information needed to make an award.

The Court finds Claimants timely submitted time sheets to Thrive Counseling and should be awarded the outstanding claimed amounts. For Claimant BrenAda Williams, the outstanding amount is $10,983.51. Claimant Kaninia Smith claims $6,000.00. Respondent argued that $2,400 of this had been vouchered for payment in 2018, as indicated in Respondent’s Claim Analysis. The Departmental Report is prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. 74 Ill. Admin. Code § 790.140; Zernel v. State of Illinois, 58 Ill. Ct. C1. 214, 219 (2006). However, Claimant Kaninia Smith testified credibly that she never received such a check. Accordingly, the record was left open for thirty days following the hearing for Respondent to file a copy of the check. No check copy or other evidence of payment was filed. The Court awards Kaninia Smith the full amount of $6,000.00.

[*173] Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Claimant BrenAda Williams is awarded $10,983.51 and Claimant Kaninia Smith is awarded $6,000.00.