2022 IL App (1st) 211356-U

FIFTH DIVISION

Order filed: June 10, 2022

No. 1-21-1356 

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the 

limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

KAREEMAH ISRAEL CLARK and

KAVON GRANT, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION

d/b/a BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF

ILLINOIS and LIBERTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellees.

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of

Cook County. 

No. 18 M6 006565

Honorable 

Michael B. Barrett, 

Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice Delort and Justice Cunningham concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Appellants’ failure to clearly articulate an argument on appeal or to support any

argument with adequate citations to authority warrants dismissal of their appeal.

¶ 2 Appellants Kareemah Israel Clark and Kavon Grant appeal an order dismissing their action 

against appellees Health Care Service Corporation d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois 
No. 1-21-1356 

- 2 - 

(“HCSC”) and Liberty Insurance Company (Liberty). Because the appellants’ brief does not 

comply with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) and does not 

provide sufficient information for this court to conduct its review, we dismiss the appeal.

¶ 3 The underlying action began when the appellants, acting pro se, filed a complaint against 

HCSC alleging that HCSC had failed to pay medical expenses that Clark had incurred. The 

appellants soon thereafter amended the complaint to add Liberty as a defendant. These first 

complaints lacked specific allegations beyond a general claim of unpaid medical bills. As a result, 

on HCSC’s motion, the circuit court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend.

¶ 4 The appellants filed a second amended complaint containing more specific allegations. 

HCSC moved to dismiss that complaint as well, this time asserting that the appellants had failed 

to exhaust their administrative remedies, namely an appeal to HCSC followed by a State Fair 

Hearing Appeal. HCSC contended that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction as a result. The circuit 

court apparently agreed with HCSC and dismissed the second amended complaint. At the same 

time, the court also granted a separate motion to dismiss filed by Liberty and dismissed with 

prejudice any claims against Liberty.

¶ 5 The appellants then filed a third amended complaint. As before, HCSC filed a motion to 

dismiss alleging a lack of jurisdiction due to the appellants’ failure to exhaust their administrative 

remedies. The appellants eventually supplemented the complaint with additional exhibits. 

Following a hearing, the circuit court issued a final order granting HCSC’s motion to dismiss and 

dismissing the third amended complaint. This appeal follows.

¶ 6 The appellants’ brief on appeal fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 341 and, as 

a consequence, does not allow for meaningful appellate review. Although the appellants in this 
No. 1-21-1356 

- 3 - 

case are acting pro se, compliance with Rule 341 is mandatory, and “[t]he fact that a party appears 

pro se does not relieve that party from complying as nearly as possible to the Illinois Supreme 

Court Rules for practice before this court.” Voris v. Voris, 2011 IL App (1st) 103814, ¶ 8 (citing 

Peeples v. Village of Johnsburg, 403 Ill. App. 3d 333, 335 (2010)).

¶ 7 There are several deficiencies in the appellants’ brief. First, the brief does not contain a 

statement of the issues as required by Rule 341(h)(3), which leaves it unclear which particular 

issues they would like this court to address. Second, the brief does not comply with the requirement 

imposed by Rule 341(h)(6) that the statement of the facts contain “appropriate reference to the 

pages of the record on appeal.” Indeed, there do not appear to be any such page references in the 

appellants’ statement of the facts. Third, and more significantly, the brief does not present a clear 

legal argument as to the claimed grounds for reversal, and it provides only a single citation to

supporting authority. Rule 341(h)(7) states that the argument section “shall contain the contentions 

of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record 

relied on.” “A point not argued or supported by citation to relevant authority fails to satisfy the 

requirements” of Rule 341(h)(7), and such a failure to comply with the rule results in the forfeiture 

of the issue on appeal. Toushin v. Ruggiero, 2021 IL App (1st) 192171, ¶ 73. 

¶ 8 In this case, it is unclear on what grounds the appellants believe the circuit court’s order 

dismissing their complaint should be reversed. Further, even if we were to decipher such grounds, 

the appellants have provided scant legal authority supporting their argument, leaving this court to 

perform that work for them. That is a task we will not undertake. See People v. Oglesby, 2016 IL 

App (1st) 141477, ¶ 205 (“ ‘A reviewing court is entitled to have the issues clearly defined with 

pertinent authority cited and is not simply a depository into which the appealing party may dump 
No. 1-21-1356 

- 4 - 

the burden of argument and research.’ ” (quoting People v. Hood, 210 Ill. App. 3d 743, 746

(1991))). Rather, the failure to provide a clear argument or to cite supporting authority results in 

the forfeiture of the issue on appeal. See id.

¶ 9 Accordingly, because the appellants’ failure to articulate an argument and to provide 

supporting authorities prevents this court from properly conducting appellate review, we dismiss 

the appeal. See Voris, 2011 IL App (1st) 103814, ¶ 8 (noting that the failure to comply with Rule 

341(h) may result in dismissal of an appeal).

¶ 10 Appeal dismissed.