{
  "id": 5809866,
  "name": "Tummala Ramabrahmam, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ramabrahmam v. State",
  "decision_date": "1990-09-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 90-CC-0585",
  "first_page": "351",
  "last_page": "352",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "43 Ill. Ct. Cl. 351"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 73",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
      "case_ids": [
        3114044
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "77-78"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-ct-cl/40/0073-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 208",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
      "case_ids": [
        3058065
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-ct-cl/38/0208-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 C.F.R. \u00a7447.45",
      "category": "laws:admin_compilation",
      "reporter": "C.F.R.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(d)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 201,
    "char_count": 2698,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.888,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41317968730995513
    },
    "sha256": "d1a9bfec5895dd0a103a69e35561b047895391dd611bf6bc6aa7626a8f9be78f",
    "simhash": "1:499ccc729436ec93",
    "word_count": 426
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:42.826417+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Tummala Ramabrahmam, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION AND JUDGMENT\nSommer, J.\nThis is a vendor-payment action, filed pursuant to section 11 \u2014 13 of the Public Aid Code (or \u201cPAC,\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 23, par. 11 \u2014 13), in which Claimant is seeking payment from the Illinois Department of Public Aid (IDPA) of his charge for medical care rendered to a hospitalized patient and recipient of public aid. Claimant\u2019s action was filed with this Court more than one year after the subject services had been rendered, and more than one year after IDPA had mailed to Claimant a remittance-advice, or \u201cvoucher\u201d notice that it was \u201crefusing to pay\u201d (section 11 \u2014 13 of the PAC) his initially-invoiced charge for said services. Respondent has moved for summary judgment, citing Claimant\u2019s failure to commence this action within the time prescribed by statute, as well as his failure to submit a properly corrected, rebill-invoice of said charge to IDPA, with his services properly identified by appropriate procedure code, within the one-year period prescribed by IDPA Rule 140.20 (89 Ill. Admin. Code 140.20) and by Federal Medicaid regulation (42 C.F.R. \u00a7447.45(d)).\nIDPA sent Claimant a-\u201cremittance advice\u201d notice of its refusal to pay his invoice, which notice listed \u201cinvalid procedure code\u201d as its reason for such refusal; and that Claimant thereafter failed to submit a corrected, rebillinvoice of said service to IDPA, within the one-year period prescribed by IDPA Rule 140.20 and 42 C.F.R., section 447.45(d). A vendor must comply timely with each of the aforementioned requirements, as each is a condition precedent to an award by this Court. Methodist Medical Center v. State (1986), 38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 208; Memorial Medical Center v. State (1988), 40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 73, 77-78, and decisions therein cited; Franciscan Medical Center v. State, No. 86-CC-0368; Riverside Medical Center v. State, No. 87-CC-0780; and St. John's Hospital v. State, No. 86-CC-2055.\nIn its report, IDPA advises that the hospital in which said surgery was performed, and two other physicians who treated this patient during his hospitalization, had all invoiced their services \u2014 properly identified \u2014 in the manner and within the time prescribed by the Handbook and IDPA Rule requirements; and that each such vendor had been paid by IDPA for such services.\nIt is therefore hereby ordered and adjudged that Respondent\u2019s motion for summary judgment is granted, and this claim is dismissed with prejudice.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Sommer, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Tummala Ramabrahmam, pro se, for Claimant.",
      "Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (Steven Schmall, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 90-CC-0585\nTummala Ramabrahmam, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed September 10, 1990.\nTummala Ramabrahmam, pro se, for Claimant.\nNeil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (Steven Schmall, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0351-01",
  "first_page_order": 463,
  "last_page_order": 464
}