Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Department of Human Services Division of Rehabilitation Services

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Third Division

November 6, 2019

Todd WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION OF REHABILITATION SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.

          

Page 794

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 795

          Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County 2016-CH-0011386 Honorable Diane Joan Larsen, Judge Presiding

          Todd Williams, of Park Forest, appellant pro se.

          Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Chicago ( David L. Franklin, Solicitor General, and Caleb Rush, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellees.

         JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Howse and Cobbs concurred in the judgment and opinion.

         OPINION

         McBRIDE, JUSTICE.

         ¶ 1 Plaintiff, Todd Williams, pro se, who has a disability that qualifies him for vocational rehabilitation services from defendant, Division of Rehabilitation Services of the Department of Human Services, requested $81,138 in 2016 in order to start a home-based instructional video business. The agency denied Williams's request. When Williams appealed, an administrative hearing officer affirmed the agency's denial, and when he further appealed, the circuit court affirmed the final administrative decision. The circuit court also denied Williams's motion to be appointed with legal counsel. Now in the appellate court, Williams asks that we reverse the hearing officer's decision, "repeal about 18" sections of the Illinois Administrative Code as inconsistent with his federal rights, and order that an attorney come to his assistance

Page 796

on remand. The agency responds that Williams did not meet the requirements of the vocational rehabilitation program and that there are no grounds to grant his request for legal representation.

         ¶ 2 Williams, of Park Forest, Illinois, is in his mid-fifties, has an undergraduate degree in math, and has a graduate degree in business administration. Williams has been a client of the division "on and off since year 1990" due to an impairment that interferes with his ability to obtain or retain employment. The record does not disclose the nature of the disability. The agency provides vocational rehabilitation services to eligible persons pursuant to the Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities Act (20 ILCS 2405/0.01 et seq. (West 2016)), state regulations for implementing the program, and the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (2012)).

         ¶ 3 The federal provisions indicate that when a person is eligible for services, the person and his or her rehabilitation counselor are to create a written plan known as an "individualized plan for employment" or "IPE" which outlines the person's vocational goal and the services to be provided to reach that goal. 29 U.S.C. § 722(b)(4) (2012); 34 C.F.R. § 361.48 (2016). The IPE must be consistent with the client's "unique strengths, resources, priorities, concerns, abilities, capabilities, interests, and informed choice" and must be "approved" by a qualified vocational rehabilitation counselor and "agreed to" by the client. 29 U.S.C. § § 722(b)(4), 722(b)(3)(C) (2012).

         ¶ 4 Consistent with the federal statutes and regulations, Illinois requires that individuals must establish an IPE before the agency can provide vocational rehabilitation services (89 Ill. Adm. Code 590.20 (2012)) and that persons who are interested in self-employment meet additional requirements in order to become eligible for that program. Interested individuals must complete a questionnaire that aids in determining whether self-employment is viable. 89 Ill. Adm. Code 590.20, 590.315(b) (2012). Individuals interested in self-employment must also provide "evidence that the proposed business has a reasonable chance of success ( i.e., provide net income to meet a majority of the customer's living expenses)." 89 Ill. Adm. Code 590.320(a) (2012). Another requirement is the creation of a detailed business plan that includes financial estimates of the total capital needed to establish the business. 89 Ill. Adm. Code 590.320(a) (2012). The applicant must provide evidence of his or her cash or credit resources, " i.e., personal account statements [and] verification of loan availability," that demonstrate the person's ability to cover costs that will not be paid by the agency. 89 Ill. Adm. Code 590.320(a)(3) (2012). The applicant's evidence must show that he or she can pay 50% of eligible costs and pay all costs beyond the agency's maximum contribution of $10,000. 89 Ill. Adm. Code 590.315(b)(4), (b)(5) (2012); see also 89 Ill. Adm. Code 590.320(c) (2012). The bureau chief may, but is not required to, grant exceptions to the agency's contribution limit. 89 Ill. Adm. Code 590.320(c) (2012). Once all of the preliminaries are met and "the customer, counselor and the Supervisor" have determined "that self-employment is a realistic employment goal for the individual," the agency may provide "[t]ools, equipment, supplies and initial stock necessary to begin a specific business." 89 Ill. Adm. Code 590.320(b) (2012). The agency, however, can never provide "cash for establishing a business." 89 Ill. Adm. Code 590.330(a) (2012).

         ¶ 5 In addition to these resources, the agency will pay "up to 100% of any Program for Self-Employment cost associated

Page 797

with accommodating the customer's disability." 89 Ill. Adm. Code 590.320(d) (2012). See, e.g., Jones v. Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, 689 F.2d 724 (7th Cir. 1982) (deaf student who qualified for financial assistance with college tuition, books, and room and board was entitled to 100% of the costs of the interpreter services needed to accommodate his hearing disability).

         ¶ 6 In early 2016, Williams filed a new application with the Illinois vocational rehabilitation program in which he asked for resources to start a business creating and marketing instructional DVDs. Although Williams does not have a law degree, he proposed giving advice on "how to do your own divorce" and "how to file bankruptcy." His third instructional topic was "how to do your own auto repairs." Williams's request for $81,138 in cash included $3067 for the purchase of a "Camcorder," camera tripod, and related equipment; $36,000 for a "TV commercial; " $5000 for a "Call Center; " and $22,000 for a vehicle to be used as his transportation (not as the subject of his automobile repair video). Williams made clear that he had no resources to contribute to his proposed enterprise.

         ¶ 7 The agency denied the application, citing the agency regulations requiring Williams to contribute some of the funding and prohibiting the agency from providing cash to establish a business or more than $10,000 in resources. The agency advised Williams that in order to support his proposal to begin a business that required $81,138, "You must provide evidence of $71,138 in resources to cover the expense over the $10,000 [limit]," or that he could submit a scaled back plan that nevertheless indicated he could cover 50% of the eligible costs and that the agency would contribute no more than $10,000 in resources.

         ¶ 8 Williams asked for an exception to the state regulations, which the bureau chief denied.

         ¶ 9 Williams then administratively appealed in mid-2016. He and his rehabilitation counselor submitted written exhibits to the administrative hearing officer and testified during a hearing convened in October 2016. The agency's written submissions included Williams's application and the agency's internal e-mails about the request. In his written submissions to the hearing officer, Williams contended that his 2016 application corrected defects that a hearing officer identified in Williams's previous application for resources to start an instructional video enterprise. Williams contended that the various state regulations, which capped the agency's contribution towards a self-employment plan at $10,000, required that he pay 50% of the costs, and imposed other terms, were inconsistent with federal requirements for vocational rehabilitation services.

         ¶ 10 At the start of the telephonic hearing, the hearing officer reminded Williams that as the petitioning party, he bore the burden of proving that the defendant agency had erroneously denied his application:

"ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER: Let me explain how the hearing will proceed. Mr. Williams you have the responsibility to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the action or inaction by DRS [(Division of Rehabilitation Services)] was not in accordance with federal or state laws or regulations[,] against DRS policy, not in accordance with your plan[,] or inappropriate for you.

TODD WILLIAMS: Okay, I want to add that I received from the bureau of administrative hearings in the mail * * * your procedures and it states in there a set of regulations, 29 U.S.C. 722,

Page 798

and within that federal regulation that they said that the [agency] is supposed to * * * only consider state policies and regulations that are consistent with federal requirements.

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER: Okay, so do you have a question?

 TODD WILLIAMS: No, no, no, no, I just wanted to bring that up for the record.

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER: Okay, then did you have a point?

TODD WILLIAMS: Well, * * * it says that * * * most of the burden of proof is on me but, one of the federal requirements is that the [agency] cannot arbitrarily put any limitations on the nature or scope of rehabilitation services. And * * * it says whatever reason they give cannot be arbitrary.

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER: Okay.

TODD WILLIAMS: So, would that not kind of like shift part of the burden over to them?

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER: No.

TODD WILLIAMS: Okay. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER: No, because it's your burden to prove that their action was incorrect.

TODD WILLIAMS: Okay, but, what if they don't have a reason to * * * not provide [or] put any limitations on * * * the scope of my services?

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER: Then you have to show that that was incorrect.

TODD WILLIAMS: Okay.

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER: They don't have to show that it was correct, you have to show that it was incorrect.

TODD WILLIAMS: Right, but, arbitrary means general or does not apply to me specifically, doesn't it?

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER: It's— you have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their action was incorrect.

TODD WILLIAMS: Okay."

         ¶ 11 A considerable portion of the hearing was devoted to dispelling Williams's belief that his self-employment application to the program in 2009 (which had proceeded to appellate court review in 2014) had any bearing on his 2016 application. The hearing officer indicated that the time had long since passed for anyone to address or rely on the previous, rejected application and that the current proceedings and her jurisdiction were limited to the current application. Williams, however, said little about his new application, other than stating that the hearing officer should "read and try to understand everything" in Williams's written submission because Williams "might not be able to state all I need at the hearing." Williams, for instance, did not present any testimony or evidence regarding his disability or his vocational rehabilitation needs. He also gave no indication of how his request for funds to start a home-based business related to his disability or his vocational rehabilitation needs. Williams contended that he was seeking vocational rehabilitation services, but when the hearing officer asked what vocational rehabilitation services he was requesting, Williams answered by citing a federal regulation, 34 C.F.R. § 361.48. When the hearing officer asked again, Williams responded, "Everything, everything I need." The federal regulation that Williams referred to outlines the "[s]cope of vocational rehabilitation services [to be made available to] individuals with disabilities" including vocational rehabilitation counseling and guidance,

Page 799

training ( e.g., training in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, medicine, law, or business), and job search and placement assistance. 34 C.F.R. § 361.48 (2016). As we outlined above, according to the federal regulation, the individual and his or her rehabilitation counselor are required to first create an IPE, which outlines the individual's vocational goal and the services that are provided to reach that goal and which are subsequently made "available," must be "appropriate" to the individual's needs, and must be "consistent with the individual's unique strengths, resources, priorities, concerns, abilities, capabilities, interests, and informed choice." 34 C.F.R. § 361.48 (2016).

         ¶ 12 The rehabilitation counselor's testimony confirmed that Williams was eligible for vocational rehabilitation services based on a disability. The counselor testified that an IPE, regardless of the objective, would have to be in place and services agreed upon before the agency could provide services. There was, however, no IPE on file for Williams because he proposed a self-employment plan without showing that he had the financial resources to cover his share of the costs above the $10,000 maximum amount that the agency could contribute towards a self-employment plan, and the bureau chief did not grant Williams's request for an exception to the agency's policies. The counselor pointed out that self-employment is a desired "employment outcome" rather than a vocational rehabilitation service that could be provided by the agency, such as job placement assistance. The counselor testified that she followed state regulations and that the regulations were consistent with federal regulations.

         ¶ 13 After taking the matter under advisement, the hearing officer issued a written decision, which affirmed the agency's decision. The hearing officer outlined that an IPE was required and that Williams had not obtained one because his business employment plan was not given an exception to the various rules that required him to contribute some of the resources. In addition, Williams failed to show that he was requesting any vocational rehabilitative services, as opposed to simply cash, and the agency's regulation prohibited it providing cash. Because Williams had not met his burden of showing that the decision was incorrect, the hearing officer affirmed the decision as correct.

         ¶ 14 Later in 2016, Williams filed a complaint and amended complaint in the circuit court seeking review of the hearing officer's decision. He next asked the agency's Client Assistance Program (CAP) to provide an attorney to represent him in the circuit court proceedings. Further below we will provide more details about the CAP program because CAP's involvement is one of the issues on appeal. For the time being, we note that CAP denied Williams's request in a letter dated March 29, 2017, because Williams had already been through the administrative appeal process and CAP "is mandated to resolve problems at the lowest possible level." CAP also said the "decision on what advocacy we will provide depends on the facts of the case and [federal, state, and department] rules [and policies]." CAP reiterated, "Should you require CAP services in the future, we would be more than happy to assist you starting at the lowest level of intervention." Williams then motioned the circuit court to require CAP to provide an attorney to represent him in the circuit court proceedings, but the court denied the motion, citing Williams's failure to present any legal authority that supported granting his request.

         ¶ 15 After briefing and hearing, the circuit court affirmed the final administrative decision denying Williams's self-employment

Page 800

application. Williams filed a motion for reconsideration, which the circuit court denied.

         ¶ 16 In late 2018, Williams took this further appeal in which ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.