{
  "id": 3143272,
  "name": "Hyde Park Medical Laboratory, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hyde Park Medical Laboratory v. State",
  "decision_date": "1988-08-22",
  "docket_number": "No. 6779",
  "first_page": "1",
  "last_page": "4",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "41 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1"
    }
  ],
  "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": 315,
    "char_count": 4674,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.89,
    "sha256": "7d4522ea927d44c4c11744780d25bfb0a50c11824c5c3083766a4f83a311386c",
    "simhash": "1:36c14902a6c67282",
    "word_count": 739
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:46.892024+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hyde Park Medical Laboratory, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nRaucci, J.\nThis case is brought by Claimant seeking to recover $340,681.00 for medical laboratory services rendered to the Department of Public Aid from December 31, 1969, through May 31, 1971. The Respondent urges that no sums are due.\nTo understand this case, and the interminable delays in its disposition, the following discussion of the facts is necessary.\nIn July of 1971, the Department of Public Aid notified Claimant that its unpaid invoices were being held pending investigation. Thereafter, the Department refused to pay them and this action was instituted for $307,960.00. By amended complaint, the amount sought is now $340,681.00.\nThis action has been delayed in proceeding because of the Claimant\u2019s removal (and reinstatement) of his original counsel, actions brought in the district court for the Northern District of Illinois, recusal of our Commissioners on allegations by Claimant of bias, failure of Respondent to produce documents, and Claimant\u2019s motions for general continuance status pursuant to our rules. This case was on general continuance status from March of 1973 until October of 1975, from January of 1977 until June of 1978 and from May of 1979 until January of 1983.\nA series of hearings was conducted in 1976 before one of our Commissioners. It should be noted that none of the present judges of this Court were such at that time. No further hearings were held until 1987. On May 11, 1987, we entered an order, on motion of Claimant, barring the Respondent from offering further evidence and instructed our Commissioner (not the one who conducted the 1976 hearings) to submit his report. He has done so, and we have extensively examined the record in our possession, and herewith issue our opinion.\nThe transcripts of proceedings reveal little evidence, and much argument, bickering and allegations of wrongdoing between the Claimant, his attorney and the assistant Attorney General (now deceased) who participated in the 1976 hearings.\nIt was asserted by Respondent during the hearings that the claim should be barred because of fraud on the part of the Claimant. Our examination of the record fails to show a scintilla of evidence that supports that allegation.\nThe record in support of Claimant\u2019s claim consists of the verified pleadings, testimony of its sole shareholder that the services were rendered to patients eligible for medical assistance, documents and the offer of \u201cboxes\u201d of invoices and records admittedly in the possession of the Respondent and, since the prior hearings, \u201clost\u201d either by the Office of the Attorney General or the Department of Public Aid more than 10 years ago. Additionally, the Claimant has submitted the statement of his counsel, under oath, that \u201cThe Bill of Particulars (previously filed) constituted a true and accurate summary of the aforesaid records and was conformed and verified prior to submission to the Commissioner.\u201d See Supplemental Motion for Immediate Granting of an Award, page 2, filed June 23,1988.\nRespondent does not deny that it received records prior to the 1976 hearings, and simply maintains they are \u201clost.\u201d In fact, Respondent has, in correspondence filed with us by Claimant, acknowledged that it did receive invoices and billings for approximately $165,000.00.\nThe bill of particulars, filed December 10, 1986, is some two inches thick, and describes by date, patient and amount of charge the more voluminous records and invoices submitted 10 years earlier to the Respondent and lost by Respondent. The bill of particulars specifies some 6,376 charges.\nBased on the entire record, and we note that Respondent has not refuted Claimant\u2019s evidence, we find that the Claimant has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is entitled to $340,681.00.\nIt is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Claimant is awarded $340,681.00 in full and complete satisfaction of this claim.\nAGREED ORDER\nRaucci, J.\nPursuant to the contract for legal services and retainer agreement attached hereto, and for acknowledged legal services rendered by Lawrence Jay Weiner during the course of this proceeding, including but not limited to the trial, hearings, pleadings and obtainment of the award:\nIt is hereby agreed by and between Lawrence Jay Weiner and the Claimant, James A. Wright, that Lawrence Jay Weiner receive the sum of $113,560.33 from the award.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Raucci, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lawrence Jay Weiner, for Claimant.",
      "Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (Robert Sklamberg, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 6779\nHyde Park Medical Laboratory, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed August 22, 1988.\nAgreed order filed February 24, 1989.\nLawrence Jay Weiner, for Claimant.\nNeil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (Robert Sklamberg, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0001-01",
  "first_page_order": 91,
  "last_page_order": 94
}