{
  "id": 3112503,
  "name": "Audrey B. Ontis, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ontis v. State",
  "decision_date": "1987-04-28",
  "docket_number": "Nos. 86-CC-1939, 86-CC-1940",
  "first_page": "198",
  "last_page": "201",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 198"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 292,
    "char_count": 5072,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.882,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5213255676296186
    },
    "sha256": "7795232b5ee060a9b1546344d82c150a23ad81e2f159334835162e99b0e05c44",
    "simhash": "1:acef4c39418c2ebb",
    "word_count": 826
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:58:26.190856+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Audrey B. Ontis, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nPatchett, J.\nThese two causes are before the Court on Respondent\u2019s motions to dismiss, and the Claimant, Audrey B. Ontis, having been given due notice of said motions, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, finds as follows:\nThe Claimant is an employee of the Illinois Department of Public Aid (IDPA). In January 1986, she filed the two above-captioned Court claims as lapsed appropriation matters, under the \u201cState law or regulation\u201d category of this Court\u2019s authority, as provided in subsection 8(a) of the Court of Claims Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.8(a)). In No. 86-CC-1940, Claimant seeks to be reimbursed for department-related travel expenses which she had incurred during the period July 1981 through June 1982; and, in No. 86-CC-1939, she seeks similar reimbursement for department travel performed from July 1982 through June 1983.\nRespondent challenges Claimant\u2019s right to receive a Court award on either of these claims, on the ground that neither of these Court actions was commenced within the two-year period for filing with the clerk of this Court, as prescribed by subsection 22(g) of the Court of Claims Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.22(g)). The validity of Respondent\u2019s challenge, and this Court\u2019s jurisdiction in these matters, will depend upon when Claimant\u2019s claims or causes of action \u201cfirst accrue[d],\u201d within the meaning of subsection (g).\nSection 12 \u2014 17.3 of the Public Aid Code (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 23, par. 12 \u2014 17.3) authorizes the department to pay its employees\u2019 travel expenses from funds appropriated for that purpose. In its department report filed in response to these claims, IDPA notes: that its Employee Travel Regulations have been in effect since at least January 1980; and that these regulations have consistently required IDPA employees to submit all vouchers (reimbursement claims) for travel performed during a State fiscal year, by no later than the 31st day of July following the end of that year. The obvious purpose of this regulatory deadline is to allow time for processing and payment of such vouchers from currently-appropriated funds, which otherwise would lapse as of September 30 following the end of the fiscal year during which the employees\u2019 travel occurred. Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 127, par. 161.\nIf Claimant had submitted her vouchers in accordance with this deadline, her fiscal year 1982 travel claim (for July 1981 through June 1982) could have been processed and paid, in accordance with section 12\u2014 17.3, before that year\u2019s appropriation had lapsed. Similarly, her fiscal year 1983 claim (for July 1982 through June 1983 travel), if timely submitted, could have been paid before October 1, 1983, when the fiscal year 1983 appropriation lapsed. In fact, neither of Claimant\u2019s vouchers was prepared prior to July 1984.\nIn interpreting subsection 22(g) of the Court of Claims Act, we believe it reasonable to conclude that such an \u201cother claim\u201d cause of action \u201cfirst accrues\u201d as of the date of an agency\u2019s established deadline, by which an individual is required to take a prescribed action. In any event, a cause necessarily \u201caccrues\u201d as of a date\u2014 here, the close of business on September 30 following the end of Respondent\u2019s fiscal year, following which Respondent has no statutory authority to pay the claim from an expired appropriation. Postponement of \u201caccrual\u201d to an even later date would result in an interpretation which clearly could not be reconciled with either the provisions of these statutes and this regulatory deadline, or with their intended purpose.\nWe find that Claimant\u2019s claim in respect to her State fiscal year 1982 travel, presented in No. 86-CC-1940, had accrued on or before September 30, 1982; and that her claim in respect to her fiscal year 1983 travel, presented in No. 86-CC-1939, had accrued on or before September 30, 1983. By delaying the filing of these claims until January 21, 1986, more than two years following such respective accrual dates, Claimant allowed her claims to be barred by the time limitation for commencement of such actions, imposed by subsection 22(g) of the Court of Claims Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.22(g)).\nIt is therefore hereby ordered that each of said actions is dismissed, this Court having no statutory jurisdiction to make an award or to take any other action with respect to them.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Patchett, J."
      },
      {
        "text": "ORDER ON DENIAL OF REHEARING\nPatchett, J.\nThis cause coming before the Court on Claimant\u2019s petition for rehearing, this Court having reviewed and considered Claimant\u2019s petition, and being fully advised in the premises, the Court finds that it is constrained by prior law on this matter and regretfully must deny the petition for rehearing and affirm the order dismissing the claim.",
        "type": "rehearing",
        "author": "Patchett, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Audrey B. Ontis, pro se, for Claimant.",
      "Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (Suzanne Schmitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(Nos. 86-CC-1939, 86-CC-1940\nAudrey B. Ontis, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed April 28, 1987.\nOrder on denial of rehearing filed November 10, 1987.\nAudrey B. Ontis, pro se, for Claimant.\nNeil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (Suzanne Schmitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0198-01",
  "first_page_order": 300,
  "last_page_order": 303
}