thank you madam chief justice please the court counsel my name is doing young i'm representing the plaintiff here who brought her an administrative appeal as the court knows we're here to figure out whether the trial court or the court correctly executed the terms of the general venue provision of the administrative law under article three of the code there is also a lurking favor of the plaintiff and there is that miss t v s are looking appeal issue in this case evidence that i think by the the red brief that was filed whether or not there's an issue before the courts or with the court's permission i'd like to reserve a little more time to address the defendant's arguments on that and i recognize that they're divided on that issue and i would just assume the address that issue separately with that then the issue is whether or not the filing of the broadly written it has very generous terms with respect to the venue it reads that the administrative review case can be filed in any county in the circuit court of any county in which any part of the hearing or proceeding culminating in the decision of the agency was held there's a court will recognize from the briefs and the issues before it is basically  comes down to arguing about what the meaning of three different terms are hearing proceeding in a helen keller court using the seventh edition of black's law dictionary  basically determined it held defined held in a gradual manner such that held that no part of the proceeding or hearing in this case was held in same in county and the part we obviously disagree with the appellate court most on is the suggestion that when the system director was standing in the place of the director in this case retired to her office to write the decision which emanated then from springfield same in county that that wasn't part of a hearing or proceeding and we think that if the court and we respectfully suggest that if the court hears the new statute it's plain meeting and reads it all in harmony and gives the the words that are used there plain meaning clearly a part of this proceeding took place in saying the county where the assistant director until they vacated decision and just said transferred to cook county where by statute when it lands there it has to be treated as if it had always been there well only the delay you know in this case the under the the nursing home care act as a matter fact there's a provision and said these cases are to be given precedence and one of the reasons for filing in same county and the fourth district appellate court is to cut off a lot of delay in the in the proceeding itself so that obviously prejudiced but that was dealt with in this instance because a friend stepped up and actually paid the monies judge appleton and his decision presumed that she went to iraq for us in springfield wrote the decision it was mailed from springfield we have no idea where she actually was when it was mailed but from the mailing itself which is not that unusual there are lots and lots of administrative review cases filed the same a county as the court knows i mean if you just look at this case this was filed in september and it's an m r seven hundred forty some case you go to most counties you know that other than cook county there are very few of them are cases where administrative review cases actually filed so it's not that unusual first same county being the seat of government to host it ministry to review cases and as that we suggested in many many of the administrative review decisions that are actually made you don't even know where the hearing took place the decision emanated from saying i'm counting and you know whether it's the secretary of state or some other agency and then the administrative review is filed there as would be is that yes it is indeed part of the process because that's where the director's offices are in the seat of government and saying and counting and that's all we would know about where the decision emanated from presumably in this case it was a delegation to up assistant director but normally would be signed off by the director and our position is that we would hope that it wasn't just a rubber stamp of the administrative law just a recommendation that the director assistant director actually deliberate don't know isn't that that seems to me to be part of a hearing or proceeding and if you look at the later edition of black's law dictionary that we proffer there are definitions which very plainly make  hearing was held in pinellas park there were preliminary things that were done by telephone and the parties are scattered all over the state and that's not unusual either in administrative provision so you know parties participate  government and that instance so with that we would urge that the court find and hold that if we give the legislature's words they're playing an the first issue that they knew was not appropriate in saying human county we respectfully disagree on the second issue we believe that the count my clients believe that the consequence of the name proper venue would propose now if we agree with the underlying issue that venue was not proper would we be so needed back to that same village or it would be your honor we think as we reversible simply because of an improper venue and we think it doesn't match serve the interests of judicial economy very well for that case to be  d to its conclusion in the circuit court that go to the appellate court and then have to start all over again in the circuit court we believe a venue is that important issue to a party but the better route to take is to file a petition for leave to appeal under rule three zero six a if that it's possible heard by the appellate court stays action in the trial court so you're not having a situation where the circuit court in one venue here's the case to its conclusion and then the to respectfully disagree with mr young not on he says you're not often sure were way and here when and where hearings take place normally in describe that does provide and in this case we do know that the hearing took place in cook out so that does certainty in most cases and i don't have most cases but in some cases you don't know where the agency decision was drafted and the agency doesn't put that down in its decision and sometimes with some decisions there are multiple agency personnel involved it could be drafted partially in chicago partially in springfield that provides a very uncertain basis for venue but we also think the appellate court in terms of applying the language of section three one zero four writing a decision was holding a proceeding and i think the answer to that is no i think to be holding a perceiving requires something more than deliberating i think it's a situation where you're conducting something presiding at something can focus on something and where other people such as the parties in the case are and i think that provides a much more sensible read it may think it's highly arbitrary in this case literally venue as being based on where that decision was mailed from which does seem an awfully tenuous bases for a venue and this is something to that could facilitate forum shopping as we pointed out in our brief in this case it's the nursing home pay should that tad vacating what we find we think is a tenuous basis but what if it was the opposite what if the department had ruled in favor of a nursing home and the nursing home is dragging the patient to a distant value when the patient might not have significant resources so i four saying that basically a court first acquiring jurisdiction and then the ministry to review action he said until there's a final disposition but we don't think that language bars transfers knew he was transferred from one county to another within the circuit court the circuit court has still kept jurisdiction so we do not read that argument which it was that i be a public court here should not have in the interests of judicial academy shouldn't have set this back to cook county and probably we feel it should have just resolve jurisdictional in administrative review cases as you are aware of this case is a little unusual because the circuit court was not sitting as a trial court it was sitting as an appellate court under special statutory jurisdiction as this court explained in freidman brothers furniture versus department of revenue the procedure prescribed by the law must be strictly pursued or no jurisdiction is conferred on the circuit court we believe that is what happened here the administrative review law mandates that a party must seek review within the time and manner provided by the law or they shall be barred from obtaining judicial review of such administrative decision that's a direct quote from the administrative review law they quote shall be barred from obtaining judicial review of such administrative decision failure to appeal in the time and manner provided bars for the review its jurisdictional there are two prongs that must be complied with time and manner looking at the time prong misled complying and that is not an issue in this case it's the second prong the manner prong that we believe is the problem here the manner is setting is set forth in the various sections of the administrative review law and it includes the who what when where and how a filing a complaint for administrative review who to name as a defendant and who to serve is identified in section three  what to file is identified in section three dash one of three and three dash one zero eight which talk about the summons and complaint and the contents of the complaint where to file is the jurisdiction and venue provision in section three dash one  four which is the subject of this appeal and how to serve it is set forth in section three dash one zero five the rules for who what where when and how of filing a complaint for administrative review are different than those for filing a civil action for which the circuit board would have regional jurisdiction a civil action is governed by the code of civil procedure a complaint for administrative review is governed by the administrative review law while some provisions of the code do apply in these circumstances where there is a conflict the administrative review law controls venue is one part of the manner of filing and it must be followed or no jurisdiction is conferred and judicial review is par administrative review law does say the court first acquiring jurisdiction of any action to review the final administrative decision shall have and retain jurisdiction until final disposition it's this is the last sentence of section three dash one zero four of the jurisdiction and venue provision at issue here and note the interesting choice of words it does not say the court first acquiring venue it says the court first acquiring jurisdiction this is because subject matter jurisdiction is only acquired if the individual seek to review files in the time and manner specified in minute administrative review law misled because or her attorney knew that improper venue could not be cured in this situation we know that they know because in response to holy family phyllis motion to dismiss or to transfer the case to cook county she's sought to strike the portion of the motion seeking transfer based upon section three dash one of four arguing that the case should be dismissed the venue was improper we agree it should have been dismissed at that point because the entirety of this case took place and cook county you know the first s if if venue is not jurisdictional then once the case is filed in any circuit court within the state of illinois if jurisdiction then attaches the case could be filed anywhere and is no provision within the administrative review law to move the case because once it's in a particular circuit court venue has attached and that court must retain jurisdiction of the case until final  disposition of the action and if that's the case then you could file anywhere and there's no remedy and no no way to get it into the proper venue counsels but the code the civil procedure does provide that that action in the wrong venue will not be beaten or dismissed if there is a proper venue to which the cries may be transferred so is not a remedy i agree but and in this case i believe that the section of the administrative review last is the case cannot be transferred that's really what this is saying that that once it's once venue has attached in a court it stays in that court so that would directly conflict with the section from the court of person civil procedure which allows the transfer well entire face to face that was a strategic decision on her part and we don't know what the reasoning was behind her strategic decision but now in order to justify that decision as has been discussed she believes that perhaps the assistant director retired to her office in springfield in order to render that decision unfortunately no one will ever know that at the center rector does have an office in cook county so it's entirely possible that the decision was written in co is accepted by this court and the fear of mere act that an agency official has an office in springfield is that and that's enough to give jurisdiction then all cases for administrative review could be brought in springfield if the mailing of the decision can give rise to venue in jurisdiction it would open the entire system up to form shopping and potential abuse because the case the decision could be mailed from anywhere within the state or perhaps even mailed somewhere from outside of the state who what when where and how or for filing a complaint are mandatory in this court has said repeatedly that when trying to impose special statutory jurisdiction upon a trial for the circuit court the statute must be strictly complied with if the time frame is not complied with there's no review if you don't name the proper parties there's no review if you don't  summonses for the party within the a timely manner there is no review there's no reason to treat venue any differently while there are cases in which venue has been an issue but at the same rules that would apply to the other sections of the administrative review law apply here the consequence for failing to follow the law is clear review is barred misled because chose to take a chance on a remote venue and she must face the consequences of that strategic decision and therefore we asked the case be dismissed because the circuit court had no subject matter jurisdiction results may be harsh they're harsh and all of the other cases where the rules are not followed and in this case misled lost in the administrative level she lost at the trial court level and it was after that that she finally paid and she will not be evicted from the nursing home for nonpayment you know to the extent that there is other issues that she may have those could be between her and her  a trust me it's been recognized that this is really the first time we've heard from the agency itself through council at this level they have not participated in the circuit court level they've not participated the court level but they have at this level beyond that council is absolutely correct that it mistreated review is in the nature of an appellate proceeding and there are cases out there that say things like form nine convenience don't apply and we mentioned some of those cases so the location of where the review is going to take place is not of such dire consequences suggested you know i can't help but the note that normally i would have argued this case in springfield but there was no of no consequence to drive up here to argue the case because of the exact circumstances i recognize the court has going on in springfield the the issue of the hearing is also an interesting one the statute the legislature did not stop with the issue of hearing alone it said hearing or proceeding and again this case amounts to an endless parsing of words by the courts and a big fear is that depending on what the decision is then every person seeking administrative review a senate going to be challenged on well whether or not the center of gravity of this case was here or there or or not but when we look at proceeding itself and we look at the latest expression in black's law dictionary it talks about the regular orderly progression of a lawsuit including all acts any difference between the time of commencement when the appeal of judgment any procedure means for seeking redress from a tribe  agency a step actor step to this part of the larger action and when the statute reads the legislature chose the words any court where any prior of the proceeding or hearing commentating administrative review are suddenly faced with you know having to prove some initial fact whether or not you know where all the parties were at the time of the hearing when increasingly i think as we all recognize these proceedings are hel issue should be and i think that would put us in the position of forum shopping on steroids i think it's still just comes down to we're stuck with what the legislature said and if we give the legislate legislative worse their plain meaning and read it all  be venue i certainly would ask that the court affirmed the appellate court in finding and holding as justice carm i recognize the grant is to jurisdiction is to the circuit courts and so the circuit courts have jurisdiction regardless of where it's filed there is a proper venue if you hold that saying we can't it was not permissible venue it's cook county and therefore the penalty or the consequence of an impermissible venue would be exceedingly  and make a determination on its merits and certainly that's what we are seeking after in the first instance i want to put words of mr smith but i think that's what he said yeah i wasn't sure whether it's saying that or it should be transferred to a different appellate court or something i