Court Opinion

ID: 9819245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:21:00.67235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:29.639198
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BRESLIN, dissenting: Because I believe that defendant Peggy Frantz has run afoul of both the spirit and the letter of the Nursing Home Care Act (Nursing Act) (210 ILCS 45/1 — 113 (West 1996)), I respectfully dissent. In my view, Lake Manor meets the definition of a “facility” under the Nursing Act. One way for an institution to meet the definition is if its residents are provided personal care, sheltered care or nursing services “through” the institution’s ownership. 210 ILCS 45/1 — 113 (West 1996). Among other definitions, “through” can mean “by the agency of’ or “by the intermediary of.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2384 (1986). In this case, personal care, sheltered care and nursing services are provided “through” Peggy Frantz, whose agent, RHC, arranges for such services with home health care providers. Therefore, I believe Lake Manor is governed by the Nursing Act and must be licensed thereunder. Moreover, as the majority points out, Frantz has owned Lake Manor since 1984. Prior to 1994, she operated Lake Manor in clear contravention to the Nursing Act by providing personal care and nursing services to her residents through her very own employees, having never received or applied for a license under the Nursing Act. Only after being told by the State that she could no longer furnish such services to her residents without being licensed did Frantz cease to do so. Subsequently, several of Frantz’ former employees, who had provided personal care and nursing services while working for Lake Manor, continued to provide those exact same services to Lake Manor residents while technically being employed by Physician’s. I believe it is a sham to have so sidestepped the licensing requirements of the Nursing Act. Furthermore, the fact that Lake Manor may be covered by the Home Health Agency Licensing Act (Home Act) (210 ILCS 55/1.01 et seq. (West 1996)) is of little consequence. As I see it, the Home Act was intended to apply to personal care or nursing services which are provided to a person in his or her own home — not a “retirement” home occupied by 21 other elderly residents who all need personal and nursing services. Although it is possible that Illinois’ licensing scheme has simply not kept pace with society’s growing need and desire for flexible living arrangements for our elderly citizens, such an issue is for the legislature to address, not us. Accordingly, I believe the majority has incorrectly held that Lake Manor is not subject to the Nursing Act. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.