Court Opinion

ID: 9704625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:41:26.198182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:03.664295
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: I respectfully disagree and would affirm the trial court. The letter referred to in the majority’s decision simply requires the payment from future income, the $2 co-payment. Section 3 — 6— 2(f) of the Code states that “[a] committed person who is indigent is exempt from the $2 co-payment and is entitled to receive medical or dental services on the same basis as a committed person who is financially able to afford the co-payment.” 730 ILCS 5/3 — 6—2(f) (West 2004). The statute in section 3 — 6—2(f) does not define the word “indigent.” The Administrative Code does define the term “indigent.” The DOC rule defines the word “indigent,” stating that “[a| committed person shall be considered indigent if[,] during the entire term of his or her incarceration[, 1 the committed person is without funds to pay the [$2] co-payment.” 20 Ill. Adm. Code § 415.30(g)(3), as adopted at 21 Ill. Reg. 5911, 5914, eff. May 1, 1997. The majority states that it is impossible to both charge the co-payment to an inmate’s account and exempt the inmate from the co-payment. However, this is exactly what the rules of DOC provide. If the indigent has no income during the entire time of his imprisonment, he is not harmed. There is no irreparable harm because he gets the medical services. I suggest that it is not impossible to both charge and exempt a person in the plaintiff’s status. That is exactly what the regulation does. The majority states that without an injunction, the plaintiff and other indigent inmates will suffer the same $2 injury over and over again. This is simply not true. The inmate who has no funds and receives no funds during his term of imprisonment will receive the same services and not be required to pay a dime for the same.