Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

William F. Rose v. State of Illinois

25 Ill. Ct. Cl. 331 Illinois Court of Claims Filed May 10, 1966 No. 5292
Disposition: (No. 5 2 9 M l a i m a n t awarded $100.00.) Award: $100.00 Agency: Department of Public Aid
Cite as: William F. Rose v. State of Illinois, 25 Ill. Ct. Cl. 331 (1966)
Legacy General 25 awarded 1960s William F. Rose v. State of Illinois 25 Ill. Ct. Cl. 331 May 10, 1966 (No. 5 2 9 M l a i m a n t awarded $100.00.) /opinions/v25-p0364-1/

WILLIAM F. ROSE, Claimant, os. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought $125.00 from the Department of Public Aid for surgery. Payment was refused due to lapse of appropriation. The court awarded $100.00, the amount supported by the Department's fee schedule and stipulation.

Claim type: Lapsed Appropriation

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. C o m a s - -l a p s e d appropriation. Where evidence showed that the only reason claim was not paid was due to the fact that, prior to the time a statement was presented, the appropriation lapsed, an award will be made.

William F. Rose, claimant, presented his statement in the amount of $125.00 to the Department of Public Aid of St. Clair County for surgery on one Arthur Steininger.

Claimant had prepared and filed with the Department of Public Aid a statement for said amount, but payment of the claim was refused on the grounds that funds appropriated for the Department of Public Aid for such payments had lapsed.

A Departmental Report was filed, which states as follows :

“The amount due from Department is $100.00. This is established by the Department’s fee schedule, and cannot be exceeded, but claimant is justly entitled to the payment of $100.00.’’

Subsequently a stipulation was entered into between claimant and the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, which found that claimant was entitled to the sum of $100.00 for services rendered the said Arthur Steininger.

It appears that the sole reason for not paying claimant was that the appropriation for the 73rd biennium had lapsed.

Claimant is hereby awarded the sum of $100.00.

Official volume 25 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion between: August 25, 1964–November 17, 1966)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.