Court Opinion

ID: 9721621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:03:40.078975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:27.724633
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE JIGANTI, dissenting: Although I agree that the better practice would be for the agency to include information regarding the 35-day limit for filing an appeal in its notice of decision, I must respectfully dissent from its conclusion that the failure to do so rises to the level of a constitutional violation. In support of his argument that the notice failed to comport with due process requirements, the plaintiff relies primarily upon Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), 424 U.S. 319, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18, 96 S. Ct. 893, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft (1978), 436 U.S. 1, 56 L. Ed. 2d 30, 98 S. Ct. 1554. In Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), 424 U.S. 319, 332-33, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18, 31-32, 96 S. Ct. 893, 901-02, the United States Supreme Court stated that procedural due process places constraints upon governmental action which affects protectable property interests and that some form of hearing is required before a person is finally deprived of a property interest. As stated in Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft (1978), 436 U.S. 1, 13, 56 L. Ed. 2d 30, 41, 98 S. Ct. 1554, 1562, “[a]n elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. ” Accordingly, several Illinois cases have held that adequate notice under the due process clause requires that persons affected by State action be informed of procedures giving them an opportunity to be heard and to present their objections. Valdez v. City of Ottawa (1982), 105 Ill. App. 3d 972, 975-76, 434 N.E.2d 1192, 1195; Hoban v. Rochford (1979), 73 Ill. App. 3d 671, 680, 392 N.E.2d 88, 94. The plaintiff here makes no claim that he was deprived of an opportunity to be heard or to present his case to the agency prior to its decision to deny his claim for benefits. Rather, his argument is that the agency denied him due process by failing to inform him of his right to an appeal or rehearing. The right to appeal an administrative decision, however, is not considered an essential element of due process. (Board of Education v. County Board of School Trustees (1963), 28 Ill. 2d 15, 18, 191 N.E.2d 65, 66; Board of Education v. Gates (1974), 22 Ill. App. 3d 16, 20, 316 N.E.2d 525, 529.) For this reason, I cannot agree that failure to advise a claimant of this right is a constitutional violation.