Nyhammer v. Basta

2022 IL 128354

215 N.E.3d 935

465 Ill.Dec. 730

Grant NYHAMMER, Appellee,

v.Paula BASTA, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Aging, Appellant.

Docket No. 128354

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed November 28, 2022

Rehearing Denied January 23, 2023

Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Springfield (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Carson R. Griffis, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.

Timothy Scordato, of Northwestern Illinois Area Agency on Aging, of Rockford, for appellee.

JUSTICE OVERSTREET delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Administrative agencies have been granted authority by our General Assembly to make a myriad of decisions affecting all aspects of society. These agencies are part of the executive branch of our government and are established to perform essentially executive functions. 73 C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Procedure § 33 (Oct. 2022 Update). Generally, administrative agencies have no judicial powers. Id. § 36. However, an administrative agency may exercise a judicial or quasi-judicial function if it decides a dispute of adjudicative fact or if the law otherwise requires it to act in a judicial manner. Id. In Illinois, such adjudicatory proceedings are referred to as "contested case[s]," which require the agency to adopt procedural safeguards that resemble those provided in an evidentiary hearing. See 5 ILCS 100/10-5 (West 2018). In this case, this court is asked to consider whether two agency decisions, both of which are committed to the agency's discretion, require hearings under these provisions of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act (Procedure Act) ( 5 ILCS 100/1-1 et seq. (West 2018)). For the following reasons, we find that they do not, and we reverse the decision of the appellate court that held otherwise, thus affirming the circuit court's judgment that dismissed a complaint for mandamus to direct the agency to hold such hearings.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Plaintiff, Grant Nyhammer, in his capacity as executive director and general counsel of the Northwestern Illinois Area Agency on Aging (NIAAA), filed a "complaint for mandamus " in the circuit court of Winnebago County, naming Paula Basta, in her capacity as Director of the Department on Aging (Department), as Defendant. NIAAA is the "area agency on aging (AAA)" that was designated by the Department for "Planning Service Area 1," which comprises the counties of Jo Daviess, Stephenson, Winnebago, Boone, Carroll, Ogle, De Kalb, Whiteside, and Lee. 20 ILCS 105/3.08 (West 2018). As the AAA for this planning area, NIAAA is responsible for the planning and development of a "comprehensive and coordinated service delivery system" for older persons. Id. § 3.07. The Department is responsible for overseeing the administration of such services and designates the AAAs to receive funds available under the Older Americans Act of 1965 (Older Americans Act) ( 42 U.S.C.A. § 3001 et seq. (2018) ), as well as other funds made available by the State or the federal government. 20 ILCS 105/3.07 (West 2018). Prior to the events leading to the dispute that is the subject of this action, the Department also designated NIAAA as a "regional administrative agency (RAA)" for the purposes of administering programs created by the Adult Protective Services Act (Protective Act). 320 ILCS 20/1 et seq. (West 2014). The Protective Act tasks the Department with the responsibility to "establish, design, and manage a protective services program for eligible adults who have been, or are alleged to be, victims of abuse, neglect, financial exploitation, or self-neglect." Id. § 3(a).

¶ 4 According to the complaint, NIAAA filed two petitions for administrative hearings with the Department, and the Department rejected both petitions on the basis that neither presented a "contested case" for which an administrative hearing is required under section 1-30 of the Procedure Act. 5 ILCS 100/1-30 (West 2018). The petitions were appended to the complaint for mandamus , and we summarize them here.

¶ 5 A. NIAAA's First Petition

¶ 6 In its first petition, NIAAA alleges as follows. In July 2013, NIAAA sent an e-mail to the Department, stating that the new Protective Act Program Services Manual (Manual) was invalid and requesting a recall of the Manual. As documented by correspondence appended to the first petition, in October 2013, NIAAA sent an e-mail to the Department stating that NIAAA was considering litigation regarding the Manual. In December 2013, the Department notified NIAAA that it was terminating its fiscal year 2014 Protective Act grant pursuant to the grant agreement, which provides for termination without cause by either party with 30 days’ notice. The notification also provided that NIAAA would no longer serve as RAA under the Protective Act and the Department would assume that role as to Planning Service Area 1 until further notice.¹

¶ 7 The first petition alleges that five years later, in April 2019, an employee of the Department told NIAAA that she had been given an order in 2014 to withhold funding from NIAAA to retaliate for its advocacy regarding the Manual. Although NIAAA does not know what funding was withheld, it alleges that in 2014-15, the Department awarded $3.79 million in "other funding" to the other AAAs but that NIAAA received zero "other funding."² Despite its efforts to have the Department investigate this past withholding of funding, the Department has not done so.

¶ 8 In its first petition, NIAAA requests the Department to, inter alia , adopt administrative rules for "contested case" hearings before the Department and to compensate NIAAA for the lost funding. The Department denied the request for a hearing on the basis that the funding issues did not present a "contested case" under the Procedure Act. The Department invited a discussion of these issues to resolve NIAAA's concerns but stated it could not issue a "final decision or order," as defined in the Procedure Act, because that provision is only applicable to "contested cases." See id. § 10-50.

¶ 9 B. NIAAA's Second Petition

¶ 10 In its second petition, NIAAA requests a hearing on the Department's 2019 rejection of NIAAA's designation of Protective Act providers. See 320 ILCS 20/3(a) (West 2018) (the Department shall contract with and/or fund regional administrative agencies, provider agencies, or both, for provision of Protective Act functions). The petition alleges that the Department had conflicting standards for the designation of service providers. According to the second petition, although the Department's stated reason for rejecting the designation was "errors in the instructions and application used for scoring purposes," the Department had not performed such a review or rejected NIAAA's designation "in at least ten years." The second petition requests the Department to adopt administrative rules for "contested case" hearings, cease using the Manual, and accept NIAAA's designation of Protective Act provider.

¶ 11 The Department rejected the second petition on the basis that it did not present a "contested case." The Department explained that the Protective Act defines "Provider Agency" as "any public or nonprofit agency in a planning and service area that is selected by the Department or appointed by the [RAA] with prior approval by the Department." Id. § 2(h). The Department further explained that the Protective Act provides that an AAA must obtain "prior approval" from the Department as to its adult protective services provider designation process. Id. § 3(b). Because these decisions are discretionary with the Department, the Department determined they do not present "contested cases" requiring a hearing.

¶ 12 C. NIAAA's Claims for Mandamus

¶ 13 Count I of the complaint alleges that the Department does not have administrative rules that comply with the Procedure Act. See 5 ILCS 100/10-20 (West 2018). Count II of the complaint alleges that the Department has a duty to provide NIAAA with an administrative hearing on the initial petition regarding the withholding of "other funding." Count III of the complaint alleges that the Department has a duty to provide NIAAA a hearing on the second petition regarding the rejection of NIAAA's adult protective services provider designation (service provider designation). The complaint requests the circuit court to enter a writ of mandamus , ordering the Department to (1) adopt administrative rules that comply with the Procedure Act for "contested case" hearings, (2) provide NIAAA a hearing on its first petition, (3) provide NIAAA a hearing on its second petition, (4) pay NIAAA's damages and costs, and (5) pay litigation expenses and attorney fees.

¶ 14 D. The Department's Motion to Dismiss

¶ 15 The Department filed a motion to dismiss NIAAA's complaint pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code). 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018). The Department argued that NIAAA failed to state any claim for which a writ of mandamus could be granted. In particular, the Department argued that the complaint did not establish "a clear right to relief, a clear duty to act, and clear authority to comply with the order" as is required to obtain this extraordinary relief. See People ex rel. Glasgow v. Kinney , 2012 IL 113197, ¶ 7, 361 Ill.Dec. 140, 970 N.E.2d 506. Following oral argument on the motion to dismiss, the circuit court granted the motion, thus dismissing NIAAA's complaint with prejudice. The circuit court found that the duties NIAAA was seeking to establish in its complaint were discretionary with the Department and that NIAAA was not entitled to an administrative hearing as to these matters as alleged in the complaint.

¶ 16 E. The Appellate Court's Opinion

¶ 17 The appellate court, in a published opinion, reversed the decision of the circuit court. 2022 IL App (2d) 200460, ¶ 48, 453 Ill.Dec. 987, 188 N.E.3d 1283. Initially, the appellate court addressed NIAAA's motion to vacate the circuit court's...