Grimm v. Calica

Summary

The Illinois Supreme Court considered whether a complaint for judicial review filed one day after the 35-day deadline under the Administrative Review Law was barred for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that although agencies are not constitutionally required to advise parties of judicial-review rights, the Department of Children and Family Services' notice was misleading because it did not clearly identify the mailing date as the service date. The court affirmed the appellate court's judgment allowing review to proceed.

Holdings

1. Under the Administrative Review Law and the Administrative Procedure Act, service of an administrative decision on a party's attorney by certified mail starts the 35-day period for seeking judicial review.
2. Although due process does not require an agency to advise a party of the statutory right to judicial review or the 35-day filing period, when an agency chooses to provide that information, the notice must fairly and adequately inform the affected party and may not be misleading.
3. Grimm's complaint was not barred by the 35-day period because the Department's notice failed to provide the process due under the Constitution; the circuit court therefore retained jurisdiction to review the Department's decision.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Department's mailing of its final decision to Grimm's attorney started the 35-day jurisdictional period under section 3-103 of the Administrative Review Law.
2. Whether the Department's notice violated procedural due process by failing to explain that the service date was the mailing date when it advised Grimm of her right to seek judicial review within 35 days of service.
3. Whether the allegedly misleading notice prevented the expiration of the 35-day period from barring Grimm's untimely administrative-review complaint.

Disposition

affirmed