SECOND DIVISION September 29, 2006
No. 1-05-4023
THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ) Appeal from the SERVICES, ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County. Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) SALVATORE SCIORTINO and JACQUELYN ) Honorable SCIORTINO, a/k/a Jacquelyn Nye, ) Susan F. Zwick, ) Judge Presiding. Defendants-Appellees. )
JUSTICE SOUTH delivered the opinion of the court:
Plaintiff, Department of Human Services (Department), brings this appeal from two
orders of the circuit court, one which dismissed part of its claim for reimbursement involving
notices of determination issued prior to June 30, 2000, and one which denied its motion for
reconsideration of the prior order. Inasmuch as there were other claims pending that were not
dismissed, the trial court made a finding pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (155 Ill. 2d R.
304(a)) that there was no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal of its orders.
Defendant Salvatore Sciortino was a recipient of psychiatric/psychological services at the
Chicago Read Mental Health Center, a facility of the Department, from December 14, 1992,
through May 1, 2001. The Department issued eight notices of determination to Salvatore, the
recipient, advising him of the service charges he owed for his care and treatment and of his right
to request a hearing on those charges before they became final. The respective dates of those
notices were June 1, 1993; two notices on February 8, 1996; September 12, 1996; March 14, 1-05-4023
2000; two notices on March 29, 2001; and May 23, 2001. He never requested a hearing, so the
charges became final.
On September 14, 2004, the Department issued its one and only notice of determination
to Salvatore=s spouse, Jacquelyn, as the responsible relative advising her of the amount due and
owing for her husband=s treatment, i.e., $31,980, and of her right to request a hearing before it
became a final, administrative decision. Jacquelyn did not request a hearing, so the charges
became final.
On June 30, 2005, the Department filed a two-count verified complaint against both
defendants in the circuit court of Cook County seeking payment in the amount of $31,980,
representing charges incurred between 1991 and 2001. Count I of the complaint was directed to
the liability of Salvatore as the recipient, and count II was directed to the liability of Jacquelyn
as the responsible relative.
In response, defendants filed a motion to strike and dismiss the verified complaint
pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2004)) on the
grounds that all of the claims prior to June 30, 2000, were uncollectible as they were barred by
the statute of limitations. In response, the Department maintained that the notice of
determination which was sent to Jacquelyn on September 14, 2004, triggered the running of the
statute of limitations and that the complaint was filed well within the five-year limitations
period.
In a written order, the trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denied
it in part, stating:
- 2 - 1-05-4023
AHere, the Department issued nine separate >Notices of
Determination= beginning June 1, 1993. Each notice contained the
statutory requirements that advised the defendants of the charges,
the determination and their right to appeal. The letter of
September 14, 2001, was a compilation of the charges incurred,
but the original notices were issued beginning in 1996. In accord
with the determination and reasoning expressed in the court in
Hefti v. State of Illinois, supra, the statutory five-year time limit
begins to run with each notice of determination and has expired for
those notices that were issued prior to June 30, 2000. The letter of
September 14, 2004, is effective only with respect to those charges
assessed after June 30, 2000.@
This appeal followed.
Because this matter comes before us in the context of a dismissal under section 2-619 of
the Code of Civil Procedure (Code), we must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the
plaintiff=s complaint and all inferences that may reasonably be drawn in its favor. Feltmeier v.
Feltmeier, 207 Ill. 2d 263, 277 (2003). In determining whether a cause of action is untimely, we
are not bound by the conclusions of the circuit court. Whether a cause of action was properly
dismissed under section 2-619(1)(9) of the Code based on the statute of limitations is a matter we
review de novo. Ferguson v. City of Chicago, 213 Ill. 2d 94, 99 (2004).
Section 5-105 of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (Mental Health
- 3 - 1-05-4023
Code) (405 ILCS 5/5-105 (West 2004)), provides, in pertinent part:
AEach recipient of services provided directly or funded by
the Department and the estate of that recipient is liable for the
payment of sums representing charges for services to the recipient
at a rate to be determined by the Department in accordance with
this Act. *** If the recipient is unable to pay or if the estate of the
recipient is insufficient, the responsible relatives are severally
liable for the payment of those sums or the balance due in case
less than the amount prescribed under this Act has been paid.@
(Emphasis added.) 405 ILCS 5/5-105 (West 2004).
A Aresponsible relative@ is defined under the Mental Health Code as the spouse. 405
ILCS 5/1-124 (West 2004). Therefore, as Salvatore=s spouse, Jacquelyn falls within the Code=s
definition of a responsible relative.
Under section 5-113 of the Mental Health Code:
AUpon receiving a petition for review *** the Department
shall thereupon notify the Board of Reimbursement Appeals which
shall render its decision thereon within 30 days after the petition is
filed and certify such decision to the Department. *** The court
shall order the payment of sums due for services charges for such
period or periods of time as the circumstances require, except that
no responsible relative may be held liable for charges for services
- 4 - 1-05-4023
furnished to a recipient if such charges were assessed more than 5
years prior to the time the action is filed; but such 5[-]year
limitation does not apply to the liability of a recipient or
recipient=s estate.@ (Emphasis added.) 405 ILCS 5/5-113 (West
2004).
Under the Mental Health Code, if the recipient is unable to pay, the responsible relatives
are severally liable for the payment of such sums. In re Estate of Vandeventer, 16 Ill. App. 3d
163, 164 (1973). No responsible relatives shall be held liable for charges assessed more than
five years prior to the time the action to recover them is filed, but that five-year limitation does
not apply to the liability of a patient or a patient=s estate. In re Estate of Vandeventer, 16 Ill.
App. 3d at 164. In fact, the law is well established that there is, in fact, no statute of limitations
upon a claim as to a patient=s estate. See In re Estate of Grimsley, 7 Ill. App. 3d 563, 566 (1972).
Defendants maintain, however, that the while the five-year statute of limitations under
section 5-113 applies to actions or claims against Jacquelyn as the responsible relative, the five-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
SECOND DIVISION September 29, 2006
No. 1-05-4023
THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ) Appeal from the SERVICES, ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County. Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) SALVATORE SCIORTINO and JACQUELYN ) Honorable SCIORTINO, a/k/a Jacquelyn Nye, ) Susan F. Zwick, ) Judge Presiding. Defendants-Appellees. )
JUSTICE SOUTH delivered the opinion of the court:
Plaintiff, Department of Human Services (Department), brings this appeal from two
orders of the circuit court, one which dismissed part of its claim for reimbursement involving
notices of determination issued prior to June 30, 2000, and one which denied its motion for
reconsideration of the prior order. Inasmuch as there were other claims pending that were not
dismissed, the trial court made a finding pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (155 Ill. 2d R.
304(a)) that there was no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal of its orders.
Defendant Salvatore Sciortino was a recipient of psychiatric/psychological services at the
Chicago Read Mental Health Center, a facility of the Department, from December 14, 1992,
through May 1, 2001. The Department issued eight notices of determination to Salvatore, the
recipient, advising him of the service charges he owed for his care and treatment and of his right
to request a hearing on those charges before they became final. The respective dates of those
notices were June 1, 1993; two notices on February 8, 1996; September 12, 1996; March 14, 1-05-4023
2000; two notices on March 29, 2001; and May 23, 2001. He never requested a hearing, so the
charges became final.
On September 14, 2004, the Department issued its one and only notice of determination
to Salvatore=s spouse, Jacquelyn, as the responsible relative advising her of the amount due and
owing for her husband=s treatment, i.e., $31,980, and of her right to request a hearing before it
became a final, administrative decision. Jacquelyn did not request a hearing, so the charges
became final.
On June 30, 2005, the Department filed a two-count verified complaint against both
defendants in the circuit court of Cook County seeking payment in the amount of $31,980,
representing charges incurred between 1991 and 2001. Count I of the complaint was directed to
the liability of Salvatore as the recipient, and count II was directed to the liability of Jacquelyn
as the responsible relative.
In response, defendants filed a motion to strike and dismiss the verified complaint
pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2004)) on the
grounds that all of the claims prior to June 30, 2000, were uncollectible as they were barred by
the statute of limitations. In response, the Department maintained that the notice of
determination which was sent to Jacquelyn on September 14, 2004, triggered the running of the
statute of limitations and that the complaint was filed well within the five-year limitations
period.
In a written order, the trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denied
it in part, stating:
- 2 - 1-05-4023
AHere, the Department issued nine separate >Notices of
Determination= beginning June 1, 1993. Each notice contained the
statutory requirements that advised the defendants of the charges,
the determination and their right to appeal. The letter of
September 14, 2001, was a compilation of the charges incurred,
but the original notices were issued beginning in 1996. In accord
with the determination and reasoning expressed in the court in
Hefti v. State of Illinois, supra, the statutory five-year time limit
begins to run with each notice of determination and has expired for
those notices that were issued prior to June 30, 2000. The letter of
September 14, 2004, is effective only with respect to those charges
assessed after June 30, 2000.@
This appeal followed.
Because this matter comes before us in the context of a dismissal under section 2-619 of
the Code of Civil Procedure (Code), we must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the
plaintiff=s complaint and all inferences that may reasonably be drawn in its favor. Feltmeier v.
Feltmeier, 207 Ill. 2d 263, 277 (2003). In determining whether a cause of action is untimely, we
are not bound by the conclusions of the circuit court. Whether a cause of action was properly
dismissed under section 2-619(1)(9) of the Code based on the statute of limitations is a matter we
review de novo. Ferguson v. City of Chicago, 213 Ill. 2d 94, 99 (2004).
Section 5-105 of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (Mental Health
- 3 - 1-05-4023
Code) (405 ILCS 5/5-105 (West 2004)), provides, in pertinent part:
AEach recipient of services provided directly or funded by
the Department and the estate of that recipient is liable for the
payment of sums representing charges for services to the recipient
at a rate to be determined by the Department in accordance with
this Act. *** If the recipient is unable to pay or if the estate of the
recipient is insufficient, the responsible relatives are severally
liable for the payment of those sums or the balance due in case
less than the amount prescribed under this Act has been paid.@
(Emphasis added.) 405 ILCS 5/5-105 (West 2004).
A Aresponsible relative@ is defined under the Mental Health Code as the spouse. 405
ILCS 5/1-124 (West 2004). Therefore, as Salvatore=s spouse, Jacquelyn falls within the Code=s
definition of a responsible relative.
Under section 5-113 of the Mental Health Code:
AUpon receiving a petition for review *** the Department
shall thereupon notify the Board of Reimbursement Appeals which
shall render its decision thereon within 30 days after the petition is
filed and certify such decision to the Department. *** The court
shall order the payment of sums due for services charges for such
period or periods of time as the circumstances require, except that
no responsible relative may be held liable for charges for services
- 4 - 1-05-4023
furnished to a recipient if such charges were assessed more than 5
years prior to the time the action is filed; but such 5[-]year
limitation does not apply to the liability of a recipient or
recipient=s estate.@ (Emphasis added.) 405 ILCS 5/5-113 (West
2004).
Under the Mental Health Code, if the recipient is unable to pay, the responsible relatives
are severally liable for the payment of such sums. In re Estate of Vandeventer, 16 Ill. App. 3d
163, 164 (1973). No responsible relatives shall be held liable for charges assessed more than
five years prior to the time the action to recover them is filed, but that five-year limitation does
not apply to the liability of a patient or a patient=s estate. In re Estate of Vandeventer, 16 Ill.
App. 3d at 164. In fact, the law is well established that there is, in fact, no statute of limitations
upon a claim as to a patient=s estate. See In re Estate of Grimsley, 7 Ill. App. 3d 563, 566 (1972).
Defendants maintain, however, that the while the five-year statute of limitations under
section 5-113 applies to actions or claims against Jacquelyn as the responsible relative, the five-
year statute of limitations under section 13-205 of the Code of Civil Procedure should prevail to
bar any claims against Salvatore, the recipient, which were incurred prior to June 30, 2000.
Section 13-205 of the Code reads in pertinent part:
AFive year limitation. *** [A]ctions on unwritten contracts,
expressed or implied *** and all civil actions not otherwise
provided for shall be commenced within 5 years next after the
- 5 - 1-05-4023
cause of action accrued.@ 735 ILCS 5/13-205 (West 2004).
Defendants reason that inasmuch as the Mental Health Code does not set a limitation on the
filing of claims against recipients, section 13-205 of the Code should apply. However, a clear
reading of the statute indicates that it does indeed address the limitation issue. The Mental
Health Code clearly states that the responsible relative shall not be held liable for charges for
services furnished to the recipient if such charges were assessed more than five years prior to the
filing of the action and that the five-year limitation does not apply to the liability of a recipient
or his estate. Applying that language to the instant case, we hold that the Department=s claims
against Salvatore are still viable inasmuch as the five-year statute of limitations does not apply to
him as it does to Jacquelyn, the responsible relative.
With respect to Jacquelyn, she received her one and only notice of determination on
September 16, 2004, advising her that the amount due and owing for the services her husband
received as a mental health patient was $31,980. The Department maintains that the charges
were assessed against Jacquelyn on September 16, 2004, when she received that notice of
determination, and that inasmuch as the action was filed well within the five-year statute of
limitations, i.e., June 2005, this action is not time barred.
However, the Department is reading words into the statute that do not exist. The statute
does not read that such charges must be assessed Aagainst the responsible relative@ within five
years. It reads that Ano responsible relative may be held liable for charges for services furnished
to a recipient if such charges were assessed more than 5 years prior to the time the action is
filed.@ (Emphasis added.) 405 ILCS 5/5-113 (West 2004). On June 1, 1993, the charges for the
- 6 - 1-05-4023
period beginning December 14, 1992 and February 2, 1993, were Aassessed@ or established at the
rate of $188 and $195 per day, respectively. On February 8, 1996, the charges for the period
beginning December 13, 1994, were changed to the rate of $210 per day. Again on February 8,
1996, the charges for the period beginning February 15, 1995, were established at the rate of
$242 per day. On September 12, 1996, the charges for the period beginning June 17, 1996, were
established at the rate of $260 per day. On February 14, 2000, the charges for the period
beginning January 30, 2000, were established at the rate of $333 per day. On March 29, 2001,
the charges for the period beginning February 19, 2001, were established at the rate of $350 per
day. And again on March 29, 2001, the charges for the period beginning March 4, 2001, were
changed to the rate of $374 per day. And on May 23, 2001, the charges for the period beginning
April 24, 2001, were established at the rate of $374 per day.
On the other hand, when Jacquelyn received her single notice of determination on
September 16, 2004, she was not given an assessment of the established rates for each period as
was done with Salvatore but was merely advised that the account balance due and owing was
$31,980.
In ruling in favor of defendant, the trial court relied upon the case of Hefti v. State of
Illinois, 49 Ill. Ct. Cl. 63 (1996). In that case, the claimant, the administratrix of decedent=s
estate, brought a wrongful death action alleging negligence by the Department of Mental Health
and Developmental Disabilities for negligently causing the suicide of her son, who was a patient
in one of its facilities. Hefti, 49 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 64. The State asked for leave to file a counter-
complaint for services rendered. Hefti, 49 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 73. The court held that the
- 7 - 1-05-4023
counterclaim, which was brought pursuant to the Mental Health Code, was untimely and cited
the Mental Health Code that Ano responsible relative may be held liable for charges for services
furnished to a recipient if such charges were assessed more than 5 years prior to the time the
action is filed.@ Hefti, Ill. Ct. Cl. at 73. The Court of Claims held that the countercomplaint
against the decedent=s mother, the responsible relative, should have been dismissed as barred as
to services accruing more than five years prior to the time the counterclaim was filed.
In the instant case, we find the trial court was correct in granting the motion to dismiss
with respect to Jacquelyn, the responsible relative, as to the notices of determination that were
filed prior to 2001, as those charges were assessed more than five years prior to the filing of the
verified complaint, and that the notice of determination sent to her on September 14, 2001, is
effective only with respect to those charges assessed after June 30, 2000. The trial court was
correct that the letter of September 14, 2001, was a compilation of the charges incurred and was
effective only with respect to those charges assessed after June 30, 2000. The statute of
limitations began to run with each notice of determination and expired for those notices issued
prior to June 30, 2000. To the extent that the trial court=s order dismissed the complaint against
Salvatore as the recipient, we reverse.
Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed with respect to defendant
Salvatore Sciortino and affirmed with respect to Jacquelyn Sciortino and the notices that were
issued prior to June 30, 2000.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part; cause remanded for further proceedings.
HOFFMAN and HALL, JJ., concur.
- 8 - 1-05-4023
- 9 -