GREGORY MACON, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought $15,000 for mental suffering due to being denied attendance at his mother's funeral, alleging negligence by the Department of Corrections. The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, as no physical impact or symptom was alleged, and the funeral furlough decision was a matter of administrative discretion not subject to review.
Cases cited: Daniels v. Adkins Protective Service, Inc. (Miss. 1971), 247 So. 2d 710; Holmes v. State (1978), 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 275
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- NEIL F. HARTIGAN, Attorney General (G. MICHAEL TAYLOR, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.
- PRISONERS AND INMATEs-inmate not allowed to attend mother’s funeral-claim dismissed. The Court of Claims dismissed an inmate’s action, alleging that the Department of Corrections was negligent in failing to allow him to attend his mother’s funeral, even though the complaint alleged mental suffering, since Claimant failed to allege any physical impact or sympton, and, in addition, based on Claimant’s record during his incarceration, the Department did not abuse its administrative discretion in refusing to grant Claimant a funeral furlough.
This cause having come for consideration on the Respondent’s motion to dismiss and the Court being duly advised in the premises:
Finds, that Claimant’s complaint states that the negligence of the Illinois Department of Corrections resulted in his not being allowed to attend his mother’s funeral. He seeks $15,000.00 as compensation for mental suffering. Respondent has moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
[*1] I
327 I
i
While Claimant’s complaint does allege mental 1
I
suffering, it does not allege any physical impact or symptom as a result thereof. No recovery may be had ~
I
for the negligent infliction of mental distress, absent I some physical manifestation of the distress. See Daniels v. Adkins Protective Service, Inc. (Miss. 1971), 247 So. I
I
2d 710 (no recovery from mental distress absent physical I injury or physical manifestation of distress).
Further, the granting of a funeral furlough is a I matter of administrative discretion. Based upon Claimant’s record compiled during his incarceration, it cannot be said that the discretion of the Department of Corrections was abused. Hence, this Court will not review the exercise of‘such discretion. Holmes v. State (1978), 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 275.