COURT of CLAIMS of THE
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REPORTS OF Cases Argued and Determined IN THE COURT of CLAIMS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS VOLUME 46 Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 1994—July 1, 1993-June 30, 1994 SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 1995 (Printed by authority of the State of Illinois) (X503204—300—7/95) PREFACE The opinions of the Court of Claims reported herein are published by authority of the provisions of Section 18 of the Court of Claims Act, 705 ILCS 505/1 et seq., formerly Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 37, par. 439.1 et seq. The Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the following matters: (a) all claims against the State of Illinois founded upon any law of the State, or upon any regulation thereunder by an executive or administrative officer or agency, other than claims arising under the Workers’ Compensation Act or the Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act, or claims for certain expenses in civil litigation, (b) all claims against the State founded upon any contract entered into with the State, (c) all claims against the State for time unjustly served in prisons of this State where the persons imprisoned shall receive a pardon from the Governor stating that such pardon is issued on the grounds of in- nocence of the crime for which they were imprisoned, (d) all claims against the State in cases sounding in tort, (e) all claims for recoupment made by the State against any Claimant, (f) certain claims to compel replacement of a lost or destroyed State warrant, (g) certain claims based on torts by escaped inmates of State insti- tutions, (h) certain representation and indemnification cases, (i) all claims pursuant to the Law Enforcement Officers, Civil De- fense Workers, Civil Air Patrol Members, Paramedics, Firemen & State Employees Compensation Act, (j) all claims pursuant to the Illinois National Guardsman’s Compensation Act, and (k) all claims pursuant to the Crime Victims Compensation Act. A large number of claims contained in this volume have not been reported in full due to quantity and general similarity of content. These claims have been listed according to the type of claim or disposition. The categories they fall within include: claims in which orders of awards or orders of dismissal were en- tered without opinions, claims based on lapsed appropriations, certain State employees’ back salary claims, prisoners and in- mates-missing property claims, claims in which orders and opin- ions of denial were entered without opinions, refund cases, med- ical vendor claims, Law Enforcement Officers, Civil Defense Workers, Civil Air Patrol Members, Paramedics, Firemen & State Employees Compensation Act claims and certain claims based on the Crime Victims Compensation Act. However, any claim which is of the nature of any of the above categories, but which also may have value as precedent, has been reported in full. ii OFFICERS OF THE COURT ROGER A. SOMMER Morton, Illinois Chief Justice - January 15, 1993— Judge - February 26, 1987—January 15, 1993 LEO F. P OCH, Judge Chicago, Illinois June 22, 1977—June 30, 1994 RANDY PATCHETT, Judge Marion, Illinois March 26, 1985— ANNE M. BURKE, Judge Chicago, Illinois March 6, 1987—May 15, 1994 NORMA F. J ANN, Judge Chicago, Illinois May 1, 1991— ROBERT FREDERICK, Judge Urbana, Illinois June 1, 1992— DAVID A. EPSTEIN, Judge Chicago, Illinois June 20, 1994— GEORGE H. RYAN Secretary of State and Ex Officio Clerk of the Court January 14, 1991— CHLOANNE GREATHOUSE Deputy Clerk and Director Springfield, Illinois January 1, 1984— iii CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS REPORTED OPINIONS FISCAL YEAR 1994 (July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994) (No. 80-CC-0260—Claim denied; motion for rehearing denied.) CHARLES S. LAWRENCE and MINNIE JOHNSON LAWRENCE, Claimants, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent. Opinion filed October 16, 1992. Order on petition for rehearing filed August 4, 1993. DAVID S. POCHIS and ALAN D. KATZ, LTD. (MILES M. DORE, of counsel), for Claimant. ROLAND W. B URRIS, Attorney General (GREGORY ABBOTT, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent. HIGHWAYS—State not insurer of persons traveling upon its highways— elements of negligence claim. The State is not the insurer of persons traveling upon its highways, but it does owe ordinary care in the maintenance of its highways, and in order to recover on a claim of negligence, a Claimant must establish that there was negligence on the part of the State, that the negli- gence was the proximate cause of the injury, and that the Claimant was not contributorily negligent. SAME—Claimants thrown from motorcycle—no showing of roadway defect—negligence claim denied. In a negligence action filed by the driver of 1 2 a motorcycle and his passenger alleging that the two suffered injuries when their vehicle struck a groove in the highway and came to a sudden stop, the claim was denied, since the only evidence indicating that the motorcycle actually encountered a roadway defect was the driver’s testimony that, as he was flying through the air after being thrown from the motorcycle, he observed that the vehicle was stuck in a highway crevice or separation. OPINION BURKE,J. On September 10, 1978, Claimants, Charles Law- rence and Minnie Johnson Lawrence were riding east- bound on the Eisenhower Expressway en route to a fam- ily gathering in Gary, Indiana. They entered the Eisenhower Expressway at the Austin Avenue entrance. Mr. Lawrence was operating the motorcycle and Minnie Johnson Lawrence was on the back of the motorcycle. It is the Claimants’ contention that their vehicle became stuck in a longitudinal joint causing the motorcycle, which was travelling 50 to 55 miles per hour, to immedi- ately stop, flinging them over the handlebars some 100 feet. Mr. Lawrence admitted that he was driving a 1020 CC Kawasaki motorcycle on the date in question. He fur- ther admitted that he was not licensed to drive a motorcy- cle and that it was the largest motorcycle he ever owned. Mr. Lawrence stated that he was changing lanes and the next thing he knew he was flying through the air. As he flew through the air, he looked back for Minnie and noticed that the motorcycle was wiggling back and forth, stuck in some type of crevice or separation in the high- way. He claims he landed approximately 100 feet away from the location of the bike. Mrs. Lawrence indicates that she was on the bike and the first sign to her that something unusual was occurring was that the bike just completely stopped and she tumbled forward. She 3 received injuries sufficient to keep her hospitalized, but did not suffer head injuries or broken bones. This Court has repeatedly held that the State is not the insurer of persons traveling upon its highways, but that it does owe ordinary care in the maintenance of its highways. In order to recover on a claim of negligence, the Claimants must establish that there was negligence on the part of the State, that the negligence was the prox- imate cause of the injury and that the Claimant was not contributorily negligent. The evidence presented by the Claimants, while it is not contradicted, is simply not suffi- cient. The only evidence that the motorcycle upon which the Claimants were riding was actually stuck in a “groove” while traveling 55 miles per hour is the testimony of Mr. Lawrence that he observed the motorcycle as he was hurling through the air. Claimants failed to sustain their burden of proof that it was the State’s negligence which caused their injuries. It is hereby ordered that the claim of Charles Lawrence and Minnie Johnson Lawrence is denied. ORDER BURKE, J. This cause coming to be heard upon Claimants’ motion for rehearing and the Court being fully advised in the premises, It is hereby ordered that Claimants’ petition is hereby denied. 4 (No. 81-CC-1479—Claim denied; motion for rehearing denied.) DR. ULRICH G. KLOPFER, Claimant, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AID, Respondent. Opinion filed August 1, 1990. Opinion filed September 29, 1993. COOKE, LEWIS & LAPAT (MICHAEL LAPAT, of coun- sel), for Claimant. ROLAND W. B URRIS, Attorney General (ERIN O’CON- NELL, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Re- spondent. LIMITATIONS—vendor-payment claims—when claim seeking payment for medical services rendered under public aid program must be filed. A claim seeking payment for medical services rendered under the State public aid program must be filed within one year of the denial of the claim by the Illinois Department of Public Aid. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE—permanent injunction stays actions of defendant. A permanent injunction operates as a continuing adjudication which stays the actions of the defendant, and as such, it must be obeyed until modified or vacated, even if erroneously entered. PUBLIC AID CODE—claim for abortion-related services denied. A claim by a physician seeking payment for 931 abortions performed for public aid recipients was denied as untimely, since it was not brought within one year of the Department of Public Aid’s denial of the claim and because, by the time the claim was presented to the Court of Claims, an injunction which had pre- vented the Department from denying payment to providers for the services in question was no longer in effect, and the constitutionality of Federal and State laws prohibiting payment for such services had been clearly established. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE—Court of Claims may on its own motion dismiss claim based on statute of limitations—motion for rehearing in physi- cian’s abortion services claim denied. Since the statute of limitations is juris- dictional and need not be specifically pleaded, and the court may on its own motion dismiss a claim based on the statute of limitations, a physician’s argu- ment that the State waived the limitations issue in his abortion services claim was without merit, and his motion for rehearing was denied.