{
  "id": 5473592,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE ex rel. THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AID, PlaintiffAppellee, v. SHEILA JONES, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Department of Public Aid v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1982-04-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 81-0087",
  "first_page": "922",
  "last_page": "924",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "105 Ill. App. 3d 922"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 271,
    "char_count": 5109,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.891,
    "sha256": "66485b159a346d646ffebe18eeb889f914b4dfd032f57033d8bf02590c56d62e",
    "simhash": "1:b2659629a91ffd7b",
    "word_count": 832
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:10:29.392087+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE ex rel. THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AID, PlaintiffAppellee, v. SHEILA JONES, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE LORENZ\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe Department of Public Aid filed an action to recover an \u201cover-issuance\u201d of the financial aid that was paid to defendant, a public aid recipient who failed to report her income from a part-time job at Walgreens. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly calculated the amount of damages incurred by the State because of defendant\u2019s failure to report a source of earned income. The following facts are material to our decision.\nFrom September 1974 through May 1975 defendant received $3,850.90 in public assistance, but she failed to report that she earned $2,225.09 during this period of time. If she had reported this source of earned income, the amount of defendant\u2019s aid payments would have been decreased by the amount earned minus certain statutory deductions. See 42U.S.C. \u00a7602 (1973 Supp.).\nThe Department filed a two-count complaint to recover the amount of \u201cover-issuance.\u201d Count 2 alleged that, in failing to report her earned income, defendant acted with fraudulent intent. Section 11 \u2014 21 of the Illinois Public Aid Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 23, par. 11 \u2014 21) makes a recipient liable for \u201crefunding the entire amount of aid received\u201d if the recipient failed to report income with intent to defraud the State. Thus, if the Department proved that defendant had fraudulent intent, she would have been liable for $3,850.90, \u201cthe entire amount of aid received.\u201d In addition to this measure of damages, section 11 \u2014 21 also authorizes a court to award punitive damages in an amount up to the entire amount of aid received.\nThe trial court dismissed count 2, and the Department has not cross-appealed from that order.\nCount 1 of the Department\u2019s complaint is based on section 11 \u2014 18 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 23, par. 11 \u2014 18.) Under this section, a recipient who fails to report a source of income \u201cshall be liable * * * for refunding a sum of money up to but not in excess of the entire amount of financial aid provided.\u201d So, if the Department proves fraudulent intent, the measure of damages under section 11 \u2014 21 is the entire amount of aid received, plus possible punitive damages. But, even if the Department fails to prove fraudulent intent, it can still recover damages under section 11 \u2014 18.\nIn the present case, count 1 of the Department\u2019s complaint alleges that, because of defendant\u2019s failure to report the income from her job at Walgreens, the State of Illinois \u201cwas and is damaged in the sum of $2,225.09.\u201d Thus, the Department claims that the State was damaged in an amount which is equivalent to the $2,225.09 defendant received from her part-time job. However, if the defendant had reported this income, the Department would have applied the statutory deductions from the amount of earned income before calculating the decrease in her assistance payments. Therefore, the actual damages suffered by the State from defendant\u2019s failure to report her earned income is less than the total amount she received from this unreported job. Nevertheless, the Department successfully argued below that, under section 11 \u2014 18, it did not have to apply these statutory deductions when calculating the amount of damages suffered by the State.\nWe conclude that this ruling was incorrect. Under the Department\u2019s construction of section 11 \u2014 18, it could recover an amount up to the entire amount of aid received (i.e., it could recover more than actual damages) even in the absence of a finding of fraudulent intent. But, to permit the Department to recover more than actual damages under section 11 \u2014 18 would mean that the legislature performed a useless act when it required the Department to prove fraudulent intent before recovering the entire amount of benefits paid.\nWhen section 11 \u2014 18 is read in conjunction with section 11 \u2014 21 it is clear that, in a case where the Department is unable to prove intent to defraud, a recipient is liable only for the actual damages suffered by the State. In the present case, actual damages is the difference between the amount of aid defendant received and the amount of aid she would have received if she had reported the income from her part-time job. The trial court, therefore, erred in computing damages without giving defendant credit for the statutory deductions which the Department is obligated to use when calculating the amount by which earned income decreases the amount of a recipient\u2019s assistance.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nSULLIVAN, P. J., and MEJDA, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE LORENZ"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General, of Chicago (Richard D. Grossman, Special Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellee.",
      "Beverly V. Groudine and James R. Potter, both of Legal Assistance Foundation, of Chicago, for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE ex rel. THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AID, PlaintiffAppellee, v. SHEILA JONES, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 81-0087\nOpinion filed April 16, 1982.\nTyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General, of Chicago (Richard D. Grossman, Special Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellee.\nBeverly V. Groudine and James R. Potter, both of Legal Assistance Foundation, of Chicago, for appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0922-01",
  "first_page_order": 944,
  "last_page_order": 946
}