STEVEN RUSINOWSKI v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES (2013)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 705 ILCCS 505/22-1 and 705 ILCS 505/22-1.

Nature of the Claim

On June 5, 2012, Claimant filed a Complaint in the Court of Claims sounding in tort against JJ Madden Mental Health Center, an Illinois Department of Human Services facility. Specifically, Claimant alleges he was falsely imprisoned by Respondent for the time period of March 5, 2011 through March 10, 2011, when he was involuntarily committed at the JJ Madden Mental Health Center. On September 8, 2011, Claimant filed a Complaint for the same incident in the Northern District of Illinois, case number 11 CV 4772, which was subsequently dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the JJ Madden Mental Health Center is a state facility. Claimant failed to file a Notice of Intent with the Court of Claims. As such, Respondent argues this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act §22-2. Section 22-2 requires a Claimant to file a Notice of Intent of Complaint in the Court of Claims within one year of injury. 705 ILCS 505/22-2. In response, Claimant argues he could not have filed a timely Notice of Intent because he did not know JJ Madden was an agency of the State of Illinois and the doctrine of equitable tolling should apply to allow his claim to proceed.

Analysis

It is clear that the Court of Claims precedent dictates that Claimants must file in the Court of Claims to prevent the tolling of the statute, even if they are pursuing other remedies. National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. State, 36 Ill.Ct.Cl. 265, 267 (1982). The Administrative Code rules specifically provide procedures for a matter to be continued generally pending possible resolution through other means. 74 Ill.Adm.Code 60. Claimant argues the doctrine of equitable tolling should allow his claim to proceed because a Notice for Intent could not have been filed on time as the Claimant did not know, have reason to know, or lacked knowledge that JJ Madden was an agency of the Illinois Department of Human Services. Specifically, he cites the involuntary petition for transfer, which indicates Claimant was being transferred to JJ Madden Mental Health Center while failing to specify it is a State facility.

Claimant correctly notes that there are no published Court of Claims opinions dealing with equitable tolling due to the Claimant's lack of knowledge. However, this Court has considered the tolling of the statute of limitations in claims involving the rights of minors and those suffering legal disabilities. In previous Court of Claims cases involving minors filed pursuant to the Crime Victims Compensation Act (“Act”), this Court held that minor should not be punished because the parent or guardian failed to protect the child's rights by timely filing. In the Crime Victims Compensation Act, the Legislature provided a specific exception to the statute of limitations protecting the ability of an individual to file two years after a legal disability, such as being a minor, has been removed. In this case, lack of knowledge fails to rise to the level requiring the special protection afforded to the rights of minors and those individuals suffering from a legal disability.

The Court of Claims is not a court of general jurisdiction where it is empowered to consider the equities of a dispute. Instead, the Court of Claims is a creature of statute and its jurisdiction is controlled by §505/8 of the Court of Claims Act. 705 ILCS 505/8. Unlike the United States and the Illinois Supreme Courts, the Court of Claims is devoid of equitable jurisdiction; its limitations provisions are jurisdictional and cannot be disregarded. Hickey v. State, 48 Ill.Ct.Cl. 376, 383 (1995). The practical effect of adopting Claimant's position of equitable tolling is that the statutory period in question would be determined on a case by case basis and could, arguably, be extended indefinitely by a party in suggesting they were unaware the Respondent was an agency of the State of Illinois. This Court has consistently upheld the rationale surrounding the statute of limitations as enacted by the General Assembly:

Finally, this Court would be remiss if it did not note the sounds public policy reason for the statue, which is that to all things there must be an end, and there is no hardship in requiring Claimants to act within a reasonable time. Failure by a Claimant to act, whether by lapse of time or omission, forfeits his title to the claim under the law, allowing the government to avail itself thereof in suits against it.

Illinois Bell Telephone v. State, 35 Ill.Ct.Cl. 345, 349 (1981).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

BIRNBAUM, J.