Antonson v. The Department of Human Services

2020 IL App (1st) 182651-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: September 30, 2020
• Docket: 1-18-2651
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2020 IL App (1st) 182651-U Nos. 1-18-2651 and 1-19-0714 (cons.) Order filed September 30, 2020 First Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT _____________________________________________________________________________ ROBERT ANTONSON, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Cook County. ) ) v. ) Nos. 17 CH 16724 ) 18 CH 01981 ) THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES ) and SECRETARY OF HUMAN SERVICES ) Honorable GRACE HOU, ) David B. Atkins and ) Celia Gamrath, Defendants-Appellees. ) Judges, presiding.

JUSTICE PIERCE delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Griffin and Justice Walker concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: In this consolidated appeal, we affirm the dismissals of plaintiff’s appeals from a decision of the Department of Human Services on certain benefits when he failed to attend the appeal hearing or provide good cause for his nonattendance. Plaintiff’s other unsupported arguments on appeal are forfeited. Nos. 1-18-2651 and 1-19-0714 (cons.)

¶2 In this consolidated appeal, pro se plaintiff Robert Antonson appeals from orders of the

circuit court dismissing and denying his two petitions for administrative relief against defendants,

the Department of Human Services (DHS) and Secretary of Human Services Grace Hou. The

petitions for administrative relief arose from two orders entered by DHS, which dismissed a single

appeal brought by plaintiff regarding the amount of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

(SNAP) benefits awarded to a member of plaintiff’s family. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the

DHS orders dismissing his appeal were illegal and violated defendants’ rules. He further contends

that the circuit court erred as to both his petitions for administrative review when it denied his

motions to compel defendants to “produce the entire record of proceedings.” We affirm.

¶3 The following facts are derived from the common law records in appeal numbers 18-2651

and 19-0714, which includes the administrative records filed by defendants in each circuit court

proceeding.

¶4 On October 24, 2017, DHS sent a notice to Ionela Antonson stating that she was approved

for $480 in SNAP benefits and had the right to appeal this decision within 60 days. Plaintiff

appealed and the appeal was assigned number 1700248132. 1

¶5 A November 13, 2017 letter from the DHS Appeals Office to plaintiff stated that a hearing

officer would hear the appeal at 9 a.m. on November 29, 2017, at 8001 Lincoln Avenue in Skokie,

1 The notice was not addressed to plaintiff, but given that plaintiff was apparently “receiv[ing] financial *** assistance” as part of the household, he had the right to appeal the benefit award. See 89 Ill. Adm. Code 10.280(a) (eff. Nov. 26, 1997) (“[a]ny individual who applies for or receives financial or medical assistance, social services or food stamp benefits shall have the right to appeal ***”); see also 89 Ill. Adm. Code 121.1(c) (eff. Feb. 7, 2014) (“An application for SNAP participation may be made by the head of the household, spouse, another household member or an adult non-household member designated by the household as an authorized representative.”).

-2- Nos. 1-18-2651 and 1-19-0714 (cons.)

and that plaintiff should be prepared to stay the entire morning or afternoon. The letter further

stated:

“If you want to change the method of conducting the hearing, you can use the ABE

Appeals Portal (abe.illinois.gov/abe/access/appeals) or contact the Appeals Office for

approval prior to the hearing date. Your request to change the method of conducting the

hearing is not approved until you receive confirmation from the Appeals Office.

***

If you are unable to be at this hearing, you must contact the Appeals Office through

the ABE Appeals Portal https://abe.illinois.gov/abe/access/appeals or the contact

information as listed above. ***

If the Appeals Office does not notify you that a postponement has been granted,

you will be expected to be available on the above date. Failure to be available, to participate

or to proceed will result in this appeal being dismissed unless you show that unexpected

circumstances prohibited you from being available. You must show that your absence was

the result of a death in the family, personal injury or illness that reasonably prohibited you

from attending the hearing, a sudden and unexpected emergency, or other circumstances

beyond your control that reasonably prevented you from being available for the hearing.”

¶6 The letter also stated that if plaintiff were unable to attend the hearing, he must request a

new date in writing and that if the appeal involved SNAP benefits, the first request for a new date

did not require showing good cause and could be made at any time prior to the hearing.

-3- Nos. 1-18-2651 and 1-19-0714 (cons.)

¶7 In a November 21, 2017 email to DHS, plaintiff requested that the hearing be conducted

via telephone conference because an in-person hearing created an undue burden. There is no

indication in the common law record that DHS responded to plaintiff’s request.

¶8 A December 1, 2017 letter from the DHS Appeals Office to plaintiff noted that neither

plaintiff nor his representative appeared at the November 29, 2017 hearing, and therefore, the

appeal was considered abandoned and dismissed. However, if plaintiff still wished for a hearing,

the appeal could be continued to a new date if he made a written request within 10 days and

presented good cause for failing to appear.

¶9 In a December 1, 2017 email to the DHS Appeals Office, plaintiff stated that he had

requested a telephone hearing in his November 21, 2017 email. A December 5, 2017 letter from

the DHS Appeals Offices denied plaintiff’s request for a new hearing date. On December 20, 2017,

plaintiff filed a pro se petition for administrative review in the circuit court. This case was assigned

case number 17 CH 16724.

¶ 10 A December 27, 2017 letter from the DHS Appeals Office to plaintiff stated that a new

hearing had been scheduled for January 24, 2018 at 10 a.m. and would be held by phone.

¶ 11 The administrative record contains a transcript of the telephone hearing held on the

afternoon of January 24, 2018. 2 The hearing officer called plaintiff at 2:22 p.m. Caseworker Meyer

Diaz appeared via telephone. However, when the hearing officer asked plaintiff to state his name

and address for the record, the hearing officer stated that she could not hear anything and asked if

plaintiff hung up. The hearing officer called plaintiff again and received his voicemail. The hearing

officer stated that she would call plaintiff again in 15 minutes and if she were unable to reach him,

2 This transcript is contained in the administrative record filed in each circuit court proceeding.

-4- Nos. 1-18-2651 and 1-19-0714 (cons.)

his appeal would be dismissed. At 2:41 p.m., the hearing officer called plaintiff again and left a

second voicemail stating that he had requested a telephone hearing but because she was unable to

reach him, his appeal must be dismissed for failure to appear.

¶ 12 In a January 25, 2018 email to Diaz, plaintiff stated that per their phone conversation on

the morning of January 24, 2018, certain income information was attached and that they conducted

a “ ‘pre-hearing meeting’ ” rather than the scheduled hearing. Plaintiff further stated that although

Diaz was to call him back and leave a voicemail about the hearing, someone else called and left

two voicemails when plaintiff was at a doctor’s appointment with his children.

¶ 13 A January 26, 2018 letter from the DHS Appeals Office to plaintiff stated the appeal was

considered abandoned and dismissed as neither plaintiff nor a representative appeared at the

hearing. However, if plaintiff still wished for a hearing, the appeal could be continued to a new

date if he made such a written request within 10 days and presented good cause for failing to

appear.

¶ 14 In a February 5, 2018 email, plaintiff stated that he spoke to Diaz on the morning of the

hearing, the conversation was a “ ‘reconciliation’ ” meeting, and that Diaz was to call him back

later in the day regarding the “ ‘no call, no show.’ ” However, that afternoon someone else left two

messages stating that the appeal was dismissed. Plaintiff noted that the appeal had already been

dismissed and was undergoing administrative review in the circuit court, but that a “clueless

representative” called and again dismissed it. He further noted that his good cause was the “nerve”

and “impertinence” of the caller, and that he appeared at the “scheduled hearing” but DHS did not.

-5- Nos. 1-18-2651 and 1-19-0714 (cons.)

¶ 15 On February 15, 2018, plaintiff filed a pro se petition for administrative review in the

circuit court, challenging the January 26, 2018 dismissal. This case was assigned case number 18

CH 01981.

¶ 16 The two administrative review proceedings, case number 17 CH 16724 challenging the

December 2017 dismissal, and case number 18 CH 01981 challenging the January 2018 dismissal,

proceeded separately in the circuit court.

¶ 17 On May 17, 2018, plaintiff filed a pro se brief in support of his complaint for administrative

review in case number 17 CH 16724. The brief alleged that DHS disrespected people, threatened

physical harm, engaged in “white collar crime,” issued “false documents,” and refused to hear

appeals by pretending that appellants did not appear. Plaintiff alleged that his email requesting a

telephone hearing was ignored and that DHS did not appear on the day of the hearing. He further

noted the “idiocrasy” in scheduling a new hearing after he filed a petition for administrative review.

¶ 18 Defendants’ brief in support of the administrative decision argued that although plaintiff

requested a change in the type of hearing, such a request was not approved until confirmed, and

the DHS Appeals Office never confirmed the change. Thus, the appeal was properly dismissed

because plaintiff did not appear and did not provide good cause such that the dismissal should be

overturned. Defendants further noted that two days after filing a petition for administrative review

in case 17 CH 16724, plaintiff was granted a new telephone hearing on his appeal from the decision

regarding the SNAP benefits. Thus, plaintiff had “essentially” already prevailed and the instant

proceeding was moot.

¶ 19 On June 5, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to compel “complete” discovery, alleging that

defendants refused to produce all documents in an attempt to hide “incriminating evidence.”

-6- Nos. 1-18-2651 and 1-19-0714 (cons.)

¶ 20 On March 7, 2019, the circuit court dismissed case number 17 CH 16724 as moot, finding

that plaintiff was already afforded the relief he sought, that is, a new hearing which was held on

January 24, 2018. The court also denied plaintiff’s motion to compel. Plaintiff filed a timely pro

se notice of appeal, which was assigned number 1-19-0714 in this court.

¶ 21 On June 25, 2018, while case number case number 17 CH 16724 was pending in the circuit

court, plaintiff filed a pro se amended complaint for administrative review in case number 18 CH

01981 challenging the January 2018 dismissal. He filed a pro se brief in support alleging that

defendants had a “culture of discrimination,” committed fraud in the administration of the SNAP

program, and issued “doctored” documents. Plaintiff alleged that defendants refused to hear an

appeal, pretended that plaintiff did not appear, cut his family’s benefits to “zero,” and condemned

his children to “starvation.” He stated that although he had “prevailed” in more than 30 DHS

appeals and 9 administrative proceedings, defendants continued to “harass and retaliate” against

him. He further noted defendants’ “idiocrasy” in scheduling a hearing on the appeal after the filing

of a petition for administrative review in the circuit court.

¶ 22 Defendants’ brief in support of the administrative decision argued that although the appeal

was properly dismissed on December 1, 2017, for plaintiff’s failure to appear, a telephone hearing

was nonetheless scheduled for January 24, 2018. However, the appeal was again dismissed after

two unsuccessful attempts to contact plaintiff by phone and his failure to show good cause for his

failure to appear.

¶ 23 On October 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to compel “complete” discovery alleging that

defendants had “cherry-pick[ed]” the documents produced, and failed to provide all documents

-7- Nos. 1-18-2651 and 1-19-0714 (cons.)

that were part of the agency’s decision-making process and copies of plaintiff’s previous

complaints about DHS.

¶ 24 On December 13, 2018, in case number 18 CH 01981, the circuit court affirmed the January

26, 2018 dismissal. The court noted that defendants’ administrative rules provided that an appeal

shall be dismissed when the appellant or his authorized representative does not appear at the time,

date, and place designated for the hearing, plaintiff was on notice that if the hearing officer could

not reach him the appeal would be considered abandoned and dismissed, and that on January 24,

2018, the hearing officer called plaintiff twice but was unable to reach him. The court further noted

that a dismissal would be vacated only if good cause were shown, and although plaintiff stated he

was at a doctor’s appointment with his children when the hearing officer called, he did not allege

a medical emergency or that the appointment was “beyond his control.” The court also denied

plaintiff’s motion to compel, as the documents he sought did not relate to DHS’s decision to

dismiss plaintiff’s appeal.

¶ 25 Plaintiff filed a timely pro se notice of appeal in case number 18 CH 01981. The appeal

was assigned number 1-18-2651 in this court, and consolidated for disposition with appeal number

1-19-0714.

¶ 26 On appeal, plaintiff contends that the January 26, 2018 dismissal of his appeal by DHS and

the circuit court’s December 13, 2018 order affirming that dismissal must be reversed because the

dismissal was illegal and violated defendants’ rules. He further contends that the circuit court erred

when it denied his motions to compel defendants to “produce the entire record of proceedings”

because it considered defendants’ “perjury and spoliation of documents.”

-8- Nos. 1-18-2651 and 1-19-0714 (cons.)

¶ 27 As a preliminary matter, we note that our review of plaintiff’s appeal is hindered by his

failure to fully comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 (eff. May 25, 2018), which “governs

the form and content of appellate briefs.” McCann v. Dart, 2015 IL App (1st) 141291, ¶ 12.

Although plaintiff is a pro se litigant, this status does not lessen his burden on appeal. “In Illinois,

parties choosing to represent themselves without a lawyer must comply with the same rules and

are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys.” Holzrichter v. Yorath, 2013 IL App (1st)

110287, ¶ 78. Rule 341(h) provides that an appellant’s brief should contain a statement of “the

facts necessary to an understanding of the case, stated accurately and fairly without argument or

comment,” and an argument “which shall contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons

therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on.” Ill. S. Ct. R.

341(h)(6), (7) (eff. May 25, 2018). Pursuant to the rule, a reviewing court is entitled to have issues

clearly defined with “cohesive arguments” presented and pertinent authority cited. Obert v. Saville,

253 Ill. App. 3d 677, 682 (1993).

¶ 28 Here, plaintiff’s briefs provide minimal citations to the record and fail to articulate a legal

argument which would allow a meaningful review of his claims. An appellant is required to cite

to the pages and volumes of the record on appeal upon which he relies “so that we are able to

assess whether the facts which [the appellant] presents are accurate and a fair portrayal of the

events in this case.” In re Marriage of Hluska, 2011 IL App (1st) 092636, ¶ 58; see also Ill. S. Ct.

R. 341(h)(7) (eff. May 25, 2018). In the case at bar, the fact section of plaintiff’s brief is a narrative

of the case from his perspective and he cites no pertinent legal authority to support his arguments

on appeal. See People v. Hood, 210 Ill. App. 3d 743, 746 (1991) (“A reviewing court is entitled to

have the issues clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and is not simply a depository into

-9- Nos. 1-18-2651 and 1-19-0714 (cons.)

which the appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research.”). “Arguments that do

not comply with Rule 341(h)(7) do not merit consideration on appeal and may be rejected by this

court for that reason alone.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Sanders, 2015 IL App (1st) 141272, ¶ 43.

¶ 29 Considering the content of plaintiff’s briefs, it would be within our discretion to dismiss

the instant appeal. See Epstein v. Galuska, 362 Ill. App. 3d 36, 42 (2005) (“Where an appellant’s

brief fails to comply with supreme court rules, this court has the inherent authority to dismiss the

appeal.”). However, because the merits of this case can be ascertained from the record, and we

have the benefit of a cogent appellees’ brief, we choose to consider the discernible merits of the

appeals. See Twardowski v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., 321 Ill. App. 3d 509, 511

(2001).

¶ 30 Turning to the merits of plaintiff’s appeals, in administrative review cases, we review the

decision of the administrative agency, not the decision of the circuit court. Exelon Corp. v.

Department of Revenue, 234 Ill. 2d 266, 272, (2009). The applicable standard of review depends

on whether the issue is one of fact, of law, or a mixed question of fact and law. Cinkus v. Village

of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200, 210 (2008).

¶ 31 An agency’s findings and conclusions on questions of fact are held to be prima facie true

and correct. Board of Education of the City of Chicago v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations

Board, 2015 IL 118043, ¶ 15. When reviewing an agency’s factual findings, we do not reweigh

the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the agency; rather, we determine whether the

factual findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. An agency’s finding is against

the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident. Windsor

- 10 - Nos. 1-18-2651 and 1-19-0714 (cons.)

Clothing Store v. Castro, 2015 IL App (1st) 142999, ¶ 26. An agency’s conclusion on a question

of law is reviewed de novo. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 2015 IL 118043, ¶ 15.

¶ 32 A mixed question of law and fact asks whether an undisputed rule of law as applied to

established facts was or was not violated. Id. ¶ 16. An agency’s determination on mixed questions

of law and fact is reviewed for clear error. Id. An agency’s decision is clearly erroneous when a

reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made. Id.

¶ 33 At the outset, plaintiff contends that the circuit court erred in each case when it denied his

motions to compel defendants to produce the entire record of proceedings and that this denial

“accept[ed] and encourage[ed]” defendants’ “perjury” and “spoliation of documents.” However,

plaintiff provides no detailed discussion of the documents purported to be missing from the record,

does not explain how those documents relate to the issue before the court, and cites no legal

authority in support of his argument on appeal.

¶ 34 As discussed above, Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. May 25, 2018) provides that the

appellant’s brief shall include an argument containing the appellant’s contentions, the reasons

therefor, and citation to the authorities. “An issue not clearly defined and sufficiently presented

fails to satisfy the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) and is, therefore, [forfeited].” In

re Detention of Lieberman, 379 Ill. App. 3d 585, 610 (2007). “The fact that a party appears pro se

does not relieve that party from complying as nearly as possible [with] the Illinois Supreme Court

Rules for practice before this court.” Voris v. Voris, 2011 IL App (1st) 103814, ¶ 8.

¶ 35 On this record and in light of the above authority, we conclude that plaintiff has forfeited

this issue. Even if we did not so conclude, however, the paucity of plaintiff’s arguments with

respect to this issue would lead us to find that he has failed to meet his burden of showing that the

- 11 - Nos. 1-18-2651 and 1-19-0714 (cons.)

circuit court committed a manifest abuse of discretion in either case. See Dufour v. Mobile Oil

Corp., 301 Ill. App. 3d 156, 160 (1998) (“A trial court’s ruling on a motion to compel discovery

will stand absent a manifest abuse of discretion affirmatively and clearly shown by the appellant.”).

¶ 36 Turning now to appeal number 1-18-2651, plaintiff seeks review of the dismissal of his

appeal based upon his failure to appear at the January 24, 2018 hearing and to show good cause

for that failure.

¶ 37 Pursuant to section 14.60(a)(1) of Title 89 of the Administrative Code (89 Ill. Adm. Code

14.60(a)(1) (Mar. 15, 2001), an appeal shall be dismissed if the appellant or the appellant’s

authorized representative does not appeal at the time, date, and place designated for the hearing.

Moreover, a dismissal shall be vacated only if good cause is shown for the appellant’s failure to

appear, such as a death in the family, personal injury or illness that reasonably prohibits the

appellant from attending the hearing, or a sudden and unexpected emergency or other circumstance

beyond the appellant’s control that reasonably prevented the appellant from attending the hearing.

See 89 Ill. Adm. Code 14.60(e) (Mar. 15, 2001).

¶ 38 Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff did not engage in the January 24, 2018 telephone hearing

despite two phone calls from the hearing officer. Plaintiff later explained that he was at a doctor’s

appointment with his children, but did not allege that it was an emergency appointment that was

out of his control. Although plaintiff asserted that he spoke with Diaz the morning of the hearing,

he did not explain how that excused him from attending the hearing. Having reviewed the record,

we are not left with the definite and firm conviction that defendants’ conclusion that plaintiff failed

to show good cause for his failure to attend the hearing was a mistake. See Board of Education of

- 12 - Nos. 1-18-2651 and 1-19-0714 (cons.)

the City of Chicago, 2015 IL 118043, ¶ 16. We therefore affirm the dismissal of plaintiff’s appeal

in appeal number 1-18-2651.

¶ 39 With regard to appeal number 1-19-0714, the circuit court dismissed plaintiff’s petition for

administrative review as moot, considering that two days after plaintiff filed a petition for review,

he was granted a telephone hearing.

¶ 40 “An appeal is moot if no actual controversy exists or when events have occurred that make

it impossible for the reviewing court to render effectual relief.” Commonwealth Edison Co. v.

Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 2016 IL 118129, ¶ 10. “Mootness occurs once the plaintiff has

secured what he basically sought and a resolution of the issues could not have any practical effect

on the existing controversy.” Hanna v. City of Chicago, 382 Ill. App. 3d 672, 677 (2008). Rulings

on mootness are reviewed de novo. People v. Custer, 2019 IL 123339, ¶ 17.

¶ 41 Here, plaintiff filed a petition for administrative review on December 20, 2017, seeking

review of the December 5, 2017 letter denying him a new hearing based upon a failure to show

good cause for his failure to appear. The record reflects that plaintiff was afforded a new hearing

on January 24, 2018. Thus, the circuit court properly dismissed plaintiff’s petition for

administrative review as moot as plaintiff had already received the relief he sought, i.e., a new

hearing on his appeal.

¶ 42 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the dismissals of plaintiff’s appeals.

¶ 43 Appeal number 18-2651, Affirmed.

¶ 44 Appeal number 19-0714, Affirmed.

- 13 -