{
  "id": 5493443,
  "name": "United Cab Driveurself, Inc., Claimant, v. The State of Illinois Department of Public Aid, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "United Cab Driveurself, Inc. v. State Department of Public Aid",
  "decision_date": "1987-05-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 83-CC-1456",
  "first_page": "91",
  "last_page": "96",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "39 Ill. Ct. Cl. 91"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "82 CC 708",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cole. Cas.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 504,
    "char_count": 9227,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.859,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2428765606322794e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6083688662929769
    },
    "sha256": "759eeab1489663e1c606bd72f88499be5ad889ec3dca2fbaaf430c9526029c8f",
    "simhash": "1:357fefb599cdbb2c",
    "word_count": 1436
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:53.461892+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "United Cab Driveurself, Inc., Claimant, v. The State of Illinois Department of Public Aid, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Patchett, J.\nThis cause is before the Court on Respondent\u2019s motion to dismiss the captioned claim, or alternatively, to strike and dismiss the complaint of the Claimant (United). Claimant having been given due notice, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, finds as follows:\n1. Claimant is enrolled as a vendor, or \u201cservice provider\u201d of medical transportation services to persons who are \u201crecipients\u201d as defined in section 2 \u2014 9 of the Public Aid Code (PAC) (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 23, par. 2 \u2014 9). Such recipients receive State-paid benefits under the medical assistance program administered by the Illinois Department of Public Aid (IDPA). In this action, filed pursuant to section 11 \u2014 13 of the PAC, United is apparently seeking \u201cvendor payments\u201d (section 2 \u2014 5 of the PAC) of from $3,400.10 to $5,550.90 in payment for services furnished during February through July 1982. The Complaint offers no other, more specific identification of the services, or service accounts on which United is basing its claim.\n2. In its Court Rule 14 department report, IDPA denies that Respondents are indebted to United in any amount; and advises that United is indebted to IDPA for an unpaid $19.70 balance on a cash advancement which Respondents had previously made to United. Respondent\u2019s position is that, except for the cash advancement, this claim is similar in subject matter to the other \u201csection 11 \u2014 13\u201d medical vendor claims which have been filed in this Court against IDPA.\n3. IDPA also reports certain procedural deficiencies and omissions in United\u2019s pleadings and exhibit documentation, which it states have hindered investigation of the claim. These include United\u2019s failures:\na. to identify (in a \u201cbill of particulars\u201d list) the specific service accounts (recipients\u2019 identities, dates served, specific dollar amounts charged on each service account) on which United bases this aggregate claim;\nb. to plead specifically, and document that each such account was presented for payment on an IDPA invoice to that agency; and\nc. to plead specifically, and document what specific \u201caction /was/ taken\u201d by that agency on each such invoice (e.g., in an IDPA remittance-advice \u201cvoucher\u201d response). The report notes that, under Court Rule 5, the obligations to plead \u201cin detail each item of damages, and the amount claimed on account thereof,\u201d and to identify specifically, and document prior presentations and agency responses, are United\u2019s responsibility, not Respondent\u2019s. IDPA asserts that the fundamental requirements of notice pleading require United to plead specific factual allegations; and that, unless United presents its claim in the degree of specificity called for by Court Rule 5, it will be extremely difficult for the Department to investigate the merits of the claim effectively. See this Court\u2019s March 1, 1982, order in Barnes Hospital v. State, No. 82 CC 708 et seq.\n4. According to the report, United has attempted to meet its burden of pleading and documenting the component accounts of its claim by tendering its \u201cGroup Exhibit A,\u201d a file of \u201capproximately 1,000 pages of documents\u201d including invoice copies (apparently for both paid and unpaid accounts), IDPA\u2019s voucher responses, and other miscellaneous bookkeeping records. In thus responding to Respondent\u2019s discovery and bill-of-particulars requests, United infers that Respondent is obliged to sort through and organize its records, identify and separate the \u201cpaid\u201d accounts from those which may be \u201cunpaid,\u201d and then attempt to construct the components of the Court claim which United has filed. Respondent denies that it has any responsibility for developing and presenting United\u2019s claim. They contend that their obligation is limited to responding to the specifics of the claim, once United has presented it in accordance with Court rule requirements.\n5. IDPA further reports that its staff, and the Clerk of this Court, have developed a set of sample pleading forms, including a bill-of-particulars form and related instructions, which medical vendor Claimants may choose to follow in commencing section 11 \u2014 13 actions against IDPA. These forms are designed to assist such Claimants in presenting their claims in accordance with Court rules and with IDPA\u2019s own regulations and requirements for vendor invoicing. They offer the additional benefit of encouraging a consistent and orderly presentation of such claims, thereby permitting IDPA staff to investigate them effectively and efficiently.\nBased upon the foregoing, the Court makes the following additional findings:\n6. United\u2019s claim, as thus presented, does not state a cause of action on which this Court could grant any relief. Before addressing any matters raised in defense (e.g., prior payment via cash advancement), the Court must first determine whether United\u2019s complaint (a) complies with the provisions of Court Rule 5, and (b) offers Respondent reasonably fair notice of specific factual allegations which it could investigate and respond to. Based upon the deficiencies outlined above, we find that the complaint does not comply with Rule 5\u2019s requirements. We further find that the complaint fails to provide Respondent with fair notice of which specific accounts comprise this claim, of United\u2019s \u201cpreviously presented\u201d invoices on those accounts, of IDPA\u2019s responses or other \u201caction taken,\u201d or of other \u201cdetails\u201d required if IDPA can be expected to report to the Court in a meaningful way.\n7. In this regard, we note the Complaint alleges United\u2019s \u201ctotal billings\u201d on a month-by-month basis (whether by month-of-service or month-of-invoicing is not indicated), and of the dollar totals of amounts allowed and disallowed by IDPA under section 11 \u2014 13. This summarized statement of bookkeeping balances does not represent the detailed allegations which a proper investigation of this claim would require.\n8. United\u2019s tender of a file containing its bookkeeping records, invoices and vouchers is not an appropriate substitute for the proper pleading of its claim. At this juncture, United\u2019s complaint asserts, in essence, that it has been underpaid by from $3,400.10 to $5,550.90, its claim representing the difference between the total of a substantial number of individually-invoiced accounts and the total of IDPA\u2019s payments and credits. Investigation can occur only after the correct \u201cpieces\u201d of the claim are identified and assembled, and the completed \u201cpuzzle\u201d is available for review. Respondent is not obliged to determine which pieces \u201cfit\u201d and which do not, or to attempt to assemble a claim which \u201cfits\u201d the complaint, because the constituent pieces are the product of United\u2019s selection. United must identify its selected accounts, and then proceed to meet Rule 5\u2019s requirements as to each of them.\n9. United has not met its pleading responsibilities simply by alleging that it \u201cdisputes all rejected (disallowed) amounts,\u201d and that it did in fact perform the services invoiced. In its report, IDPA advises that a vendor\u2019s right to be paid for services is contingent upon its timely submission of properly prepared and documented invoices. The Department asserts that its invoicing requirements are explained in its Medical Assistance Program (MAP) Handbook for Transportation Services, and that such requirements correspond to IDPA regulations and policy. These Handbooks were furnished to United and other vendors upon their enrollment; and United has, by written agreement, committed itself to complying with all Handbook requirements. The extent of United\u2019s compliance can only be assessed by the parties and the Court after United has adequately presented the accounts on which it bases this claim, and after IDPA has investigated as to those accounts.\n10. Court Rule 9 provides that a Claimant\u2019s failure to comply with the provisions of Rule 5 shall be grounds for dismissal of its claim.\nIt is therefore hereby ordered:\nThat Respondent\u2019s motion to dismiss is hereby granted, and Claimant United\u2019s complaint is hereby stricken as insufficient in form and substance, as not complying with the rules of this Court, and as failing to state a cause of action on which relief may be granted;\nThat Claimant is given thirty (30) days from the date of this opinion in which to file an amended complaint. Any amended complaint hereinafter filed by Claimant shall utilize the form and format of the IDPA Medical Service Provider Complaint available from the clerk of this Court, including the submission of a completed bill of particulars as therein indicated, and shall set forth the specific detail of Claimant\u2019s individual accounts required by that form and the related instructions.\nThat, if Claimant should fail to file its amended complaint within the time herein specified, then this claim and cause of action shall stand dismissed with prejudice, and the clerk of this Court shall thereupon record such dismissal on the Court\u2019s records pertaining to this claim.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Patchett, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Holland J. McFarland, for Claimant.",
      "Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (Kathleen O\u2019Brien, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 83-CC-1456\nUnited Cab Driveurself, Inc., Claimant, v. The State of Illinois Department of Public Aid, Respondent.\nOpinion filed May 1, 1987.\nHolland J. McFarland, for Claimant.\nNeil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (Kathleen O\u2019Brien, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0091-01",
  "first_page_order": 189,
  "last_page_order": 194
}