JOHN H. SPIEGLER, M.D., Claimant, 0 . THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
A physician claimed payment for medical services provided to a child in the custody of the Department of Children and Family Services. The court awarded $402, finding that the expenditure was expressly authorized by law because the Department had a legal duty to provide ordinary medical care to the child.
Statutes cited: Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 127, par. 166; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 37, par. 701-1 et seq.; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 37, par. 701-12
Cases cited: Fergus v. Brady (1917), 277 Ill. 272
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- TYRONE C. F AHNER, Attorney General (KATHLEEN Q’BRIEN,Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.
- AppRopRiATIoNs-indebtedness in excess of appropriation is prohibited unless expressly authorized by law.
- SAME-food and medical care of prisoners expressly authorized by law.
- SAME-wards of State- duty to feed, clothe and shelter-juvenile court Act. The Juvenile Court Act imposes upon the legal custodian of a child the duty to provide child with food, shelter, education and ordinary medical care and the State is therefore expressly authorized by law to provide such services to children in its custody.
- G ENERAL ASSEMBLY-control of public funds-function of General Assembly.
- L APSED APPRoPRIATIoNs-medical care of State ward- claim allowed. Medical provider caring for child who was in custody of Department of Children and Family Services should not be penalized because of difficulty Department faces in forecasting specific appropriation fund requirements for each fiscal year and claim would therefore be allowed for services rendered as services were expressly authorized by law and lapse of appropriation would not bar payment.
The record in this cause indicates that the purpose of the expenditure by the Department of Children and Family Services for which this claim was filed was medical services provided by the Claimant in fiscal years 1979 and 1980 for a child in the custody of the Department of Children and Family Services.
The Department of Children and Family Services has submitted a report on this claim which states that the claim would have been paid out of appropriation and fund No. 001-41817-4400-08-00 (children’s personal and physical maintenance) had the claim been timely presented. There were sufficient funds remaining in the appropriation in fiscal year 1979. There were not sufficient funds remaining in fiscal year 1980 to pay that portion of the claim. However, funds were available to the Department for the payment of this claim in appropriation and fund No. 001-41817-4400-03-00 (counseling services) if the Department had requested that a transfer bill be passed by the General Assembly.
[*338] Section 30 of An Act in relation to State Finance (Ill.
Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 127, par. 166) prohibits obligating the State to any indebtedness in excess of the money appropriated for a department, unless expressly authorized by law.
Therefore, the only way an award of the fiscal year 1980 portion of this claim may be made is if this expenditure was expressly authorized by law. Previously, expenditures for food and medical care for prisoners have been recognized to be expressly authorized by law (Fergus v . Brudy (1917), 277 Ill. 272). Also the Court has considered this problem in connection with the apprehension and return of fugitives. In those cases, the Court has made awards on the basis that payment was expressly authorized by law.
The child for whom Claimant performed the services for which payment is sought was placed in the custody of the Department of Children and Family Services by an order of the circuit court of Cook County pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 37, par. 701-1 et s e q , ) . Section 1-12 of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 37, par. 701-12) imposes upon the legal custodian of a child the duty to provide him with food, shelter, education and ordinary medical care.
The Court has considered the limitations placed on the Department of Children and Family Services by the General Assembly. It is the function of the General Assembly to control the expenditures of public funds by the various agencies of State government. However, this is a situation very close to that of Fergus v . Brudy. Here, as in Fergus v , Brudy, the State agency had custody by court order and was authorized by law to provide basic necessities for the person in custody, in this instance a child.
[*339] The invoices for these services were submitted after the close of the fiscal year, but the Department of Children and Family Services was required to pay the invoices out of funds for that prior fiscal year. This situation leads to unique and difficult forecasting problems for the Department of Children and Family Services. The provider of these services should not be penalized because the Department is unable to accurately forecast specific appropriation fund requirements for each fiscal year. Had the Department been able to properly forecast, sufficient funds would have been available for the payment of all of this claim.
Because the expenditure here in question was required by law, it is hereby ordered that the Claimant, John H. Spiegler, M.D., be and is hereby awarded the sum of $402.00 (four hundred two dollars and no cents).