Appendix — Edelman v. Jordan
Supreme Court brief1974
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ED
AUS 20 1973
Supreme Court of the Unitel State .
Ocroser Term, 1972
No. 72-1410
JOEL EDELMAN, DIRECTOR OF ILLINOIS DEPART.
, MENT OF PUBLIC AID, AND SUCCESSOR TO ED-
WARD WEAVER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
ATD,
Petitioner,
Vs.
JOHN JORDAN, et al.,
Respondent.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
APPENDIX
WILLIAM J. SCOTT,
Attorney General of the State of linois,
160 North La Salle Street,
Chicago, Mlinois,
Downarp S. Carnow,
Special Assistant Attorney
300 West Washington Street,
Chicago, Mlinois,
Printed by Authority of the State of Illinois
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED APRIL 16, 1973
CERTIORARI GRANTED JUNE 11, 1973
PORES IRS Ot: me - 2 . SO LER | TED eae
_Cook County Department of Public Aid, December, 1970 and
INDEX
Chronological List of relevant Docket Entries. ...ccccrecee l
Plaintiff's complaint for Declaratory Judgment,
Equitable and Other Appropriate Relief, Filed
January 12, 1971 Pesos reese ee ereseeeeeeseseseseseseseeeses h
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Affidavit
of Jeanette Bryant, Filed January 14, 1971 cescscccescecece 17
Order In Rodriquez v. Swank, attached as Exhibit B
to Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for ,
Temporary Restraining Order, Filed January 14, 1971 .eeee-e 22
Analysis of Registered Applications Pending Investi-
gation, Cook County Department of Public Aid, November
1970, attached as Exhibit D to Memoradnum in Support
of Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,
Filed January 14, 1971 See eereeeeeeeeeseeeeeeseeeseseseseeee 30
Temporary Restraining Order, Filed January 21, 1971l....... 312
Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Equitable
and other Appropriate Relief, Filed January 28, 1971 es... 37
Answer of Defendants Daniel and Barrett to Plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint, Filed February 16, 1971 esccccssccsccee YO
Analysis of Registered Applications Pending Investigation
January, 1971, Filed March 17, 1971 coccccccccccccccccccces £6
a
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Answer of Defendant Swank to Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint, Filed March 22, 1971 e@eeeeevrevee eee eeeeeaeneeene eee
Request to Defendant Swank for Production of Documents,
Filed March 29, 1971 eeoereeeersreen eee eee reseee see eevee eeeeeee ee
Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Defendants’ Answers,
Filed April 5, 1971 @rereereeereeeeeeeereeeeereeereeeeeeeeeee eee
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Filed April 5, 1971.....
Minute Order Granting Motion to Strike Certain Portions
of Defendants'
Answer, Filed April hb, 1971 acccccececesceses
Preliminary Injunction, Order and Decree - April 16, 1971
Motion for Order for Production of Documents, Filed
June 23, 1971
Minute Order granting Motion for Order to Produce -
June 23, 1971
td
Motion for Order that Facts be Taken as Established,
Filed July 27,
1971 and Exhibit A, Handbook Transmittal
No. 139, February 8, 1963, Department of Health,
Education and Welfare Pree eeeeeeereeeeeee ee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Minute Order Granting Motion that Facts be Taken as
Established - July 27, 1971 eeeereeee ee eeeeeeeereeeeaeeeeeeeeee
Monthly Illinois Department of Public Aid Report of
Disposed Applications at End of Month by Date of
Application, May, 1971, Filed September 1, 1971 ecccscccecece
Cook County Department of Public Aid Inter-Office
Memoradnum, Filed October 21, 1971 part of case record
of Plaintiff Jordan attached as Exhibit to Plaintiffs’
Motion for Summary Judgement, Permanent Injunction and
Other Relief.
8
1
INE OE SONNED
Ae INN LR PRY ON
5
|
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Defendants’ Brief in Opposition to Motion of Plaintiffs
for Summary Judgment, Permanent Injunction and Other
7 Relief, Piled December l, 1971 ee@eereeeeeeeeseeveeeeeaeeeee 106
Adoption of Swank's Brief by Daniel and Cook County
Department of Public Aid, Filed December 6, l197lecccccee 115
Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting Summary Judgment,
Piled February 4, 1972 eree eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 117
Judgment Order and Decree, Filed March 15, 1972 seeeceee 122
Illinois Department of Public Aid MAG Applications
disposed by program; number and recent disposed by
program, March, 1973 eeeeeeeeeeeee eee ee eeee eee eeeeeenee ee 129
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
Ocroser Term, 1972
-No. 72-1410
JOEL EDELMAN, DIRECTOR OF ILLINOIS DEPART-
MENT OF PUBLIC AID, AND SUCCESSOR TO ED-
WARD WEAVER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC ;
AID,
Petitioner,
vs.
JOHN JORDAN, et al.,
Respondent.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
APPENDIX
pine A sh Bh NH ae AS ag ABI a
January 12,
January 14,
January 14,
January 14,
January 21,
January 28,
February 16, 1971 Answer to Defendants Daniel and Barrett
March 17, 1971 Analysis of Registered Applications Pending
March 22, 1971 Answer of Defendant Swank to Plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint,
March 29, 1971 Request to Defendant Swank for Production
of Documents,
April 5, 1971 Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Defendants'
Answers,
ieee
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST
OF RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES
1971 Plaintiff's Complaint for Declaratory
Judgment, Equitable and Other Appropriate
Relief, ;
1971 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and Affidavit of Jeanette Bryant, Filed,
1971 Order in Rodriguez v. Swank, attached
as Exhibit B to Memorandum in Support
of Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary
Sree order, filed,
1971 ‘Analysis of Registered Applications ,
Pending Investigation, Cook County Department
of Public Aid, November 1970, attached as
Exhibit D to Memorandum in Support of
Plaintiffs* Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order, s
1971 Temporary Restraining Order, Filed
1971 Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment,
Equitable and Other Appropriate Relief,
to Plaintiffs" Amended Complant, Filed
Investigation, Cook County Department of
Public Aid, December, 1970 and January, 1971,
ihe ilk «Llc PAA ALN eR cAllatalie a tae
eet 0 al advice
April 15, 1971
April 15, 1971
April 16, 1971
June 23, 1971
June 23, 1971
July 27, 1971
July 27, 1971
September 1, 1971
October 21,
December I,
December 6,
February 4,
1971
1971
1971
1972
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Filed,
Minute Order Granting Motion to Strike
Certain Portions of Defendants’ Answer
Preliminary Injunction, order and decree.
Motion for Order for Porduction of Documents,
Minute Order granting Motion for Order to
Produce
Motion for Order that Facts be Taken
as Established, Filed July 27, 1971
and Exhibit A, Handbook Transmittal
No. 139, February 8, 1963, Department of
Health, Education and Welfare
Minute Order Granting Moti6n that Pacts
be Taken as Established - .
Monthly Illinois Department of Publid Aid
Report of Disposed Applications at End of
Month by Date of Application, May, 1971,
Cook County Department of Public Aid Inter-
Office Memorandum, filed October 21, 1971,
part of case record of Plaintiff Jordan
attached as Exhibit to Plaintiffs' Motion
for Summary Judgment, Permanent Injunction
and other relief.
Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Motion
of Plaintiffs for Summary Judgment, Permanent
Injunction and other relief,
Adoption of Swank's Brief by Daniel and Cook
County Department of Public Aid, filed December 6
Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting
Summary Judgment, Filed February 4, 1972
3
Oe reese
eb iy at it EER
ate Ay Me ae tA by Ree AE
Phew ial he tellin a ecards atts nt cn OR Mads ip ey bl NE lade lait te!
March 1, 1973
March 24, 1972
April 7, 1972
January 18, 1973
May 22, 1973
May 29, 1973
May 31, 1973
Illinois Department of Public Aid MAG
Application disposed by program, number and
percent disposed by program,
ADDITION TO RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES
Defendants’ Notice of Appeal
Plaintiff's Notice of Cross Appeal
Opinion and Order
Application for Stay Pending
Petition for Certiorari
Objections by Plaintiff to
Application for Stay Pending ~
Appeal
Stay Pending Application for
Certiorari denied by the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Stay Pending Appeal granted
by Supreme Court with respect
to Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Final
Judgment and Decree
5
4
Ol si thas Se sl
)
)
+ Aia; DAVID DANIEL, Director, )
)
)
)
)
)
, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT). J, /-
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF rutnote! YAY 12
EASTERN DIVISION
' |
: 6 ee
JouN JORDAN, by his next friend, ) : 4.3. VISTRIC
(JEANETTE BRYANT, individually )
and on behalf of all other )
persons similarly situated, ) ; x
‘ ) 2 att
: Plaintiffs, estes Vani 3
es a ° . J
im vs. 15S a
HAROLD O. SWANK, Director,
Illinois Department of Public
Cook County Department of
Public Aid; EDWARD J. BARRETT,
Comptroller of Cook County,
individually and in their
official capacities,
Defendants,
R DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
COMPLAINT FO
PROPRIATE RELIEF
EQUITABLE, AND OTHER AP
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. Plaintiff, individually a
person
declare mandatory an
lations requiring all applications fo
and Disabled (AABD) to be acted upon within thirty da
the date of application,
within thirty days for those dete
declaring void all state statutes and regulation
with said mandatory federal regulations.
com are™ 29
Pi — ——— ~~
s similarly situated, seeks primarily to have th
dad binding on the defendants. federal regu-
Aé Il oo
nd on behalf of all other
is Court
r Aid to the Aged, Blind
ys from
and requiring actual receipt of payment
rmined eligible, and further
s inconsistent
Plaintiff also seeks
iL
-2-
OP lg ntl Mido,
.
(a declaration that the Illinois Public Aid Code, ch. 23, Sec-
| tion 3-1, I11.Rev.Stat., federal law, 45 C.F.R. § 233.20(a) (1) (2)
Gaia, and equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the
fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution,require
AASD to be paid from the date of application if the applicant
meets the eligibility conditions at the time of application.
LRN Ait ihe Nall
JURISDICTION .
“2. Jurisdiction is conferred on this court by 28
The amount in
cee ee
U.S.C. § 1343(3) (4) and by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
controversy,exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum
or value of $10,000.00. |
3. Plaintiff's action for declaratory and injunctive
relief, and for benefits wrongfully withheld is authorized by:
(a) 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 and Rule 57 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which relate to
declaratory judgments;
(b) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which provides redress
for the deprivation under color of law of rights,
Fo ee ete
privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitu-
tion and laws of the United States.
PLAINTIFFS
4. The named plaintiff, John Jordan, age sixty-one,
_lives at 4241 W. Calumet, Chicago, Illinois, in a room of the
apartment of Jeanette Bryant.
4 . 5. John Jordan has a substantial mental deficiency
Sy Sane
er ares :
-3-
naa nae OS
‘and functions at the level of a small child. Jeanette Bryant =
| generally supervises most matters affecting: the raieediles life
of John Jordan.
CLASS ACTION
elt AE ie lie nce athe
6. The named plaintiff brings this action on his
own behalf and pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all other persons simi-
; larly situated.
i " DEFENDANTS
7. Defendants are as follows: (a) Harold 0. Swank,
is the Director of the Illinois Department of Public Aid and
is charged with statewide administration of the public assistance
programs, including Aid to the Aged, Blind and Disabled, and
with establishing regulations to carry out the statutory pro-
visions of such programs; (b) David Daniel is the Director of
the Cook County Department of Public Aid, an agency of the
Illinois Department of Public Aid, and is responsible for
administering the public assistance programs in Cook County;
and (c) Edward J. Barrett, is the Comptroller of Cook County,
compensitvie for the signing of emergency welfare checks.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8. John Jordan has a substantial mental impairment
and functions at the level of a small child. He is unable to
a ene
-4-
.
0 eo SS BN tala Gilda ie
read or to recognize and count money. His intelligence is so
limited that he|requires supervision in most matters affecting
is everyday life. His mental impairment is of a permancnt
ature and substantially impairs his ability to perform labor
r services or to engage in any useful occupation.
9. On or about September 18, 1970 John Jordan applied
or Aid to the Disabled at the Oakland office of .the Cook County
artment of Public Aid. .
10. At the time of his application for Aid to the
isabled John Jordan met all.of the eligibility conditions for
id to the Disabled, and he still meets said eligibility condi-
tions, and is in all ways qualified for such assistance.
11. John Jordan, or friends acting on his behalf, have
cooperated with the Cook County Department of Public Aid in all
respects and have furnished all information requested by the |
}Cook County Department of Public Aid and its employees.
12. The Cook County Department of Public Aid has yet
}to act on John Jordan's application for Aid to the Disabled and
| John Jordan has not received any such assistance from the
| defendants as of the date of filing this law suit.
: 13. The sole reason for the delay is that the case-
= worker of the Cook County Department of Public Aid assigned to
John Jordan's application has not had time to act on John Jordan's
application.
14. John Jordan has no income or assets except for
COPY BOUND CLOSE IN CENTER
=§-
approximately $2.00 he earns by working at a drugstore one
a week and other infrequent odd jobs involving manual labor.
ts Ne a - mee ay eee YY
15. John Jordan is in dire need of monetary and
dical assistance. He does not eat properly and is suffering
om malnourishment because of lack of sufficient funds and is
esently sick with a cold and cough and in need of medical
re. Also he lacks vision in one eye and needs to be fitted
glasses.
16. Because his application for Aid to the Disabled
is not been acted upon and approved, John Jordan has suffered
ad will continue to suffer irreparable injury, loss, and
mage because of the lack of adequate funds to purchase those
essities requisite for a minimum standard of life compatible
th health and well-being.
COUNT I
17. Count I is brought as a class ection by the named
aintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of ail other persons
larly situated pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b) of the Federal
les of Civil Procedure. The class is composed of all persons
Illinois eligible for Aid to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled,
ereinafter “AABD") who are required by defendants to wait
nger than 30 days after application for a determination of
1 /
;
) of plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class.
Maintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests
, the class. ;
18. Illinois participates in the Federal government's
ram of Aid to the Aged, Blind, and Disabled (AABD), estab-
shed by the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Subchapter XVI, §§
81 et. seq. As a condition thereof, Illinois is required |
conform with the requirements of the Social Security Act and
ulations promulgated thereunder by the United States Depart-
t of Health, Education and Welfare.
19. The Social Security Act provides that
“all individuals wishing to make application under
the (AABD) plan shall have opportunity to do so
and that such aid or assistance shal] be furnished
with reasonable promptness to all eligible indi-
viduals." 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a) (8).
20. At all times relevant herein, the regulations of
e Department of Health, Education and Welfare have required
at action on applications for AABD be taken within thirty days,
cluding, for those determined eligible, the actual receipt of
D assistance- Handbook of Public Assistance Administration,
rt IV, Section 2200(b) (3) (4), 2300(b) (3) (5S).
22, The defendants maintain that these abovementioned
ulations are not mandatory and binding on them with respect
AABD applications. °
; 22. As of the end of November, 1970, approximately
% of the applications for AABD pending at the Cook County
ee
-7J-
Department of Public Aid had been pending longer than 30 days.
23. The rules and regulations of the defendant
. Illinois Department of Public Aid with respect to time standards
for processing of AABD applications, Illinois Categorical
Assistance Manval, Sections 4004-4004.3, are in violation of
the requirements of the Social Security Act and regulations
quoted above in paragraphs 19 and 20.
24. Further, at all times relevant herein, Section
8255 (and subsections thereunder), Illinois Department of Public
Aid, Categorical Assistance Manual, has provided that initial
grants (ineluding AABD) may be authorized only for the month
in which the application has been approved, but not for any
prior months.
25. Pursuant to Section 8255, Iliinois Categorical
Assistance Manual, plaintiff John Jordan is barred from receiving
AABD benefits for October, November, and December, 1970 in
violation of the Social Souuwity Act and regulations wastes
above in paragraphs 19 and 20.
26. By failing to follow the "30 day requirement"
of federal law, the defendants and their agents acting under.
color of state law, have unlawfully deprived Plaintiffs of AABD
assistance and their rights under the Social Security Act and
the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
27. No adequate administrative remedy or remedy at
law is available to the plaintiffs.
28. Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable damage to
their health and well-being and will continue to,suffer severe “*
and irreparable injury because of the failure of defendants
'and their agents to comply with the "30 day requirement."
COUNT II
29. Count II is brought as a class action by the
named plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(a)(b) of the
) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class is composed of
} all applicants for AABD in Illinois who meet the eligibility
requirements when they apply but are denied benefits for the
intervening period from the date of application to the month
} in which their grant is suthori zed. This class is so numerous
that joinder of all members is Sageactionl: There are questions
of law and fact common to the class. The claims of plaintiff
are typical of the ciaims of the class. Plaintiffs will fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the class.
30. Some eligible applicants for AABD similarly
situated to John Jordan applied for AABD benefits in September,
1970, and were determined eligible in said snobs and began
receiving assistance in and for said month.
31. Some eligible applicants similarly situated to
John Jordan applied for AABD benefits in September, 1970, and
were actermined eligible in October, some were determined
eligible in November, and some were determined eligible in
December, and as a consequence, said applicants began receiving
assistance in and for October, November, and December respec-
z Li © 7
tively, but not for any period prior to the month in which they
we determined eligible.
4 32. By delaying determinations of eligibility, the
@efendants lessen expenditures to the needy for basic subsis-
tence payments. . .
33. To condition the date upon which AABD benefits
begin to the speed of the administrative process, is to estab-
Qish,wholly arbitrary and invidious classifications between
Pimilarly situated, equally needy persons.
34. Section 8255 of the Illinois Categorical Assis-
ance Manual is invalid and unconstitutional on its face and
bs applied to plaintiffs in violation of the equal protection
Iclause of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the
tunitea States. |
35. The policy of the defendant Illinois Department °
dor Public Aid, and the practices of its 102 agent County. epee
ments of Public Aid throughout the State of Illinois, do not
}require AABD assistance be paid from the date of ‘application
ywhen the applicant meets all of the eligibility conditions at
Tenat time.
36. The policy and practices of the defendants
described in paragraph 35 above and in this Cowmt are in vio-
Jilation of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et. seq.
| and federal regulations issued thereunder, 45 C.F.R. § 233.20
(a) (1) (2) (iii), and Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
7 °- i
iz
- -10-
Handbook of Public Assistance Administration, Part II, § 3300,
§ 4300. :
37. The policy and practices of the defendants
described in paragraph 35 above and in this Count are in vio-
lation of the Illinois Public Aid Code, ch. 23, Section 3-1,
I1l1.Rev.Stat. which provides that financial aid
“shall be given under this Article to or in behalf
of aged, blind, or disabled persons who meet the
eligibility conditions..."
38. Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to
suffer irreparable injury to their health and well-being because
of the policy and practice of the defendants described in para-
graph 35 above and in this Count.
39. No adequate administrative remedy or adequate
remedy at law is available to plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff: respectfully prays, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, that this Honorable
Court: x
1. Enter a temporary restraining order enjoining
the defendants, their successors in office, agents, and employees
and all other persons in active concert and participation with
them, from continuing to cause irreparable harm to plaintiff
and other persons similarly situated by failing to comply with
the requirement for making determinations of eligibility for
AABD applicants within 30 days and sending checks to those
- determined eligible within that same 30 day period.
, sg
° fo #: beac V4
-11-
2. Enter preliminary and permanent injunctions
‘enjoining defendants, their successors in office, agents and
employees, and all other persons in active concert and parti-
Bs ceeden with them, from failing to comply with the federal "30
‘ay requirement" with respect to applicants for AABD.
3. Enter a final judgment declaring Illinois Cate-
Wgorical Assistance Manual Sections 4004 and 8255 (and subsections
hereunder) as applied to applicants for AABD invalid insofar
Aas they are inconsistent with the Social Security Act and regu-
lations issued pursuant thereto.
4. Enter a final’ judgment declaring that the Illinois
Public Aid Code, ch. 23, Sections 3-1, I1l.Rev.Stat., the Social
Security Act and regulations thereunder, and equal protection ; .
of the laws as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the
J united States Constitution require that applicants for AABD
3who meet the eligibility conditions for AABD at the time of
their application are entitled to AABD benefits from the date
of application. -
5. Enter a permanent injunction enjoining the defen-
dants to award to the entire class of plaintiffs all AABD bene-
fits wrongfully withheld. ;
6. Allow punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.00
against Harold Oo. Swank.
A we
ook: ae ia
7. Allow plaintiff his costs herein, and also grant
him and all persons similarly situated, such additional or
alternative relief as may seem to this Court to be just,
proper and equitable.
Sheldon Roodman
Kenneth K. Howell
Community 11 Counsel
116 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60603
726-0157
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Respectfully —_— Ss.
MNketcen fee cree,
eldon ery
Le Wa
Kenneth | K. Howell
OSE IN CENTER
COPY BOUND cL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT °
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEP es
EASTERN DIVISION bE be DS
JAN 14 1571
* STUART CUNINNSGHAM
o'c‘ork
JORDAN, by his next friend
ETTE BRYANT, individually
on behalf of all other
ons similarly situated,
ax
Plaintiffs,
wa 7t C 70
; County Department of
lic Aid; EDWARD J. BARRETT,
ptroller of Cook County,
ividually and in their
icial capacities,
Defendants.
MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Plaintiff, JOHN JORDAN, on his own behalf and on behalf
all other persons similarly situated, by his attorneys,
ELDON ROODMAN and KENNETH HOWELL, respectfully moves for the
try of a temporary restraining order enjoining the defendants,
eix successors in office, agents and employees, and all persons
active concert and participation with them, from failing to
e determinations of eligibility or ineligibility for applicants
br Aid to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled (hereinafter “AABD") within
irty days from the date of application, and from failing to
svide the first AABD check within thirty days from the date of
I
is
Bpplication for those determined eligible for AABD, ‘such check
overing the full amount of the AABD entitlement had the applica-
4 ion been acted upon within 30 days as required by federal law.
Further, the named plaintifé, John Jordan, respectfully
jnoves for the entry of a temporary restraining order enjoining
e defendant — County Department of Public Aid and its
i, ployees from failing to make a determination of eligibility on
is application for AABD any later than 4:30 P.M., Friday, January
915, 1971, and in the event his application is approved, enjoining
“jthe déetendants to issue no later than 4:30 P.M., Friday, January
915, 1971 a check for the full amount of his AABD entitlement had
Shis application been acted vpon within the maximum thirty day
}time period.
In support of this motion, plaintiff submits the affidavit
of Jeanette Bryant, attached hereto, and a supporting memorandum
of law with exhibits attached thereto.
Respectfully eamgis
skeen ees
Sheldon Roodman /
one of the Attorneys for the
Plaintiffs
Sheldon Roodman
Kenneth K. Howell
Community Legal Counsel
116 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60603
726-0157
‘
...- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
OHN JORDAN, by his next friend,
JEANETTE BRYANT, individually
4and on behalf of all other
persons Similarly situated,
Plaintiffs.
vs.
HAROLD O. SWANK, Director,
llinois Department of Public
id; DAVID DANIEL, Director,
Xomptroller of Cook County,
Sindividually and in their
Yofficial capacities,
Defendants.
(ETATE OF ILLINOIS)
) SS.
OUNTY OF C O O K)
AFFIDAVIT OF JEANETTE BRYANT
I, JEANETTE BRYANT, being first duly sworn, Gepones and says:
1. My name is Jeanette sxyene and I live at 4241 South
Cabinet) Chicago, Illinois
2. John Jordan, age sixty one, is a roomet in my apartment
at. 4241 Ss. Calumet, Chicago, Illinois, and has been for over
three years.
3. John Jordan has a substantial mentiil deficiency and
functions at the level of a small child. Hejsunable to read or
to ‘recognize or count money. His intelligence is so limited
that he requires supervision in most matters affecting his
every day life. I have cared for John Jordan with the
a/ a Co
assistance of the Progressive Baptist Church and some members
thereof.
4. On or about September 18, 1970, John Jordan applied
for disability assistance at the Oakland Office of the Cook Coun
Department of Public Aid.
5. A caseworker from the Cook County Department of Public
Aid, Anna Marie McCarthy, came to my apartment in November for
a home visit in connection with John Jordan's application for
disability assistance. :
6.:.2 and John Jordan have eseporetiot in every way possible
with any and all requests of the Cook County Department of Public
Aid’ and its employees.
7. John Jordan has no income or assets except for approxi-
mately $2.00 he earns by working at a drugstore one day a week
and other occasional odd jobs.
8. The Cook County Department of Public Aid has yet to act
om the application for disability assistance of John Jordan and
John Jordan has not received any such assistance from the Depart
ment of Public Aid to date. Anna Marie noCerthy, the caseworker
‘for John Jordan, has informed me that she is extremely _—_ and
has not had time to act on John eonsaaes s application.
,
4.2
* 9. John Jordan is in dire need of monetary assistance
and medical assistance. He does not eat properly because of
lack of sufficient funds and is presently sick with a cold and
cough and in need of medical care. Also he lacks vision in one
eye and needs to be fitted for glasses.
fe. eda rc Wet cork”
“Jeanette Bryant og
¢
Subscribed and Sworn to Be fore
‘me this ‘“ day of January, 1971
we
intr Public
ZL?
LIN WE UNITED STAVES DISTRICT COUKT
FOR THE NOY! DISTRICY OF ILLINOIS.
he hae ee EASYERH DIVISIOH wy
. -. : .- "+ Wares ores
\DYS RODRIGU Ze PEAY Soha
j on behalf of hes minor -.
Hldren, RATARL, FRRECISCO, —
LIA, and HIGUEL RODRIGUEZ; .
1 on behalf of all other .
wer sons similarly situates,
+? : .
‘
oft, 2%
‘is
Sn Ss ie Plaintiffs,
S. 10 tah. Sil TH, on benait
her minor chilérena, STEVE}
DebRA KELLY, anc PAY OND
f, end on behalf of all
her persons similarly situated,
‘e-
eet et eet ee et eet et
ee we
.
Plaintiff =Thtervenor >
7.
ROLD O. SHANK, Director, Illi-
bis Depertwent of Public Aid;
pine DANIEL, Rixector, Coox ,
a, Defendants.
° ¢
ss aS, id id ¢ .
et et et et et et et et at et Se et
’
* .
.
- ‘bes
-
Stat ORDER
| “this matter r coming ¢ on to be: heard pursuant to this
burt's Henorand=s Opinion of Septenber x“, 1970, “and Orders
tered on such date denying all of the Sefendants' notion to
iss, denpins a Ferold O. Swank's motion for Suag-
ont on the plez dings, and allowing Both counts of plaintiffs’
Zaint to be eaintained as a class ‘action, and pursuant to
he ‘stipulation of fects peas: by ¢ the parties ‘hereto; and eZ
caseraed
*.* .
“eho os set . e . .
* : : "s te
=. @.*%* eo So Se > .
. . 2 ¥* ~~. > 5 © 2P7 Yc 30 ot . 24.
b — ° . > : >, * ghieon S. e! 2% wt >>. “ «,
“the court heving | costed with counse} for the ‘parties
i
s* al
.<
=
‘*
having determined that the severe) provisions of this Deeree -
-
“necessary tio prohibit the ‘future violation of the binding ares
eral: thirty-dey ‘Feguirescnts and to Fenedy past violations of
a thirty-dey, requirenenis, to, ‘the “end that plaintiffs ‘and the
ss “of pocecns represented by: then Shall have. the full equit-
—~ — ae «*
°. ¢ . >
c relief ,bo,which they are entitiea, ae ME : a
aT Is HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: _
(a) @e-
thes From the date of the issuance of. this Decree,
dant David Daniel, as Director of the Cook cnenty Department |
‘public’ “Aid, is enjoined, ordered, and directed, ‘and (b) defen-
nt-Harold 01 Swank, es Director of the Illinois Bapartnese of ‘
lie Aid, is ‘enjoined, ordered, and Gtieten to cause and order
je, one ‘hundred ° two (102) County Departments of Public Aid in the
ate ‘of Illinois: to make all deterninat tions of eligibility or
— for all applicants ne Aid to Fenilies with, Depen-
: nt ‘chiléres (AFDC) within thirty Go) days from the Gate of
pplication, such epplications being nade either orally or in
iting; whichever is made first, subject only te the exception
"Further, (a) defendants Davie iel, as
d paragraph Se infra.
ector b£ the Cook County Department of Public aia, & Béward :
--
Barrett, 2s ‘Comptroller of Cook county, are hereby enjoined,
rected, and ordered, and (b) defendant Harold °. Swank, as—
irector of the Illinois Department of Public aia is hereby en- %
ined, ordered, and directed to cause and order the one bendived
ee
* (202) County Department's of Public’ “Aid in the State of Tlli-
. * of . °« “ae "2 e° eS a X . tal Sar
cel t= She fo Beats: |
ry gy ee ee spe face
18 oe , Sewae Sry seine Bie et a4 mn
Lice), ‘or othervise: to cause for those applicants dcter-
ined eligibie, the receipt by ‘aia applicants of their first gr
vl) ‘arpe” check within ‘thirty. (30) “days. from the daic of appli-,
ation, subject only to the “exception in paragraph 5. infra.
2
-
eee (ay defendant David peviiel, as Director of the Cook
ounty Depertnent of Public Aid, is hereby endetead,; ordered,
nd directed;' and (b) defendant Harold 6. “Swank, as Director of
ae .
e Illindis Departnent of Public Rid, Ze “enjoined, ordered, and
wirected to cause and order the one hundred two (102) County De
partments ‘of Public Aid ‘nm the State ae Illinois: to make ‘dete
7“ @
ninetions of eligibility or ineligibility of all ‘pending AFDC
depplications within thirty (30) days from the date of issuance |
DE this Decree, ‘subject only, to the exception in paragraph S,
adlina Further, (a) betbadnnin: David Daniel, as Director of
Cook County Department of Public Aid, and Edwerd J. Barrett,
as Comptroller “of Cook County, are hereby enjoined, directed,
and” ordered, end {b) defendant Rarold O. Swank, as Director of
the I11inois Depart tment of Public Aid, is hereby enjoined,
ordered, and directed to cause and order the one hundred to ‘
(102) County Departments of Public Aid in the State of Illinois,
and their’ ‘respective ‘comptrollers for his counterpart in office)
or otherwise: to cause for those applicants determined eligible
, *e%e
wo ae
Fe PE. a ee
ae
eee
.
a
g >.
-* _*
-~ we i Soka Ts enls Es oe a
oF :
>
recei ipt | i: sid epplicents Cs their r fitse funn’ APoo check .
@* as “ . +e.»
ze eS S *. ee Coetetere tetris
in, Ahirey (30) ezys ‘from the date of the iss suance poy this
ec, sbbjéct only to the’ exception ‘in paragraph 5, infra. -
ve S° “she tee
Be that the aefendent Harold 0. _Suank, Director, main
*.@
: - . ‘-
WNL acti ete UY NE ated Pie Oe Say, rer. yh “* = ee ous
Departsent of Public Aig, ‘Be and is. hereby nandatorily_ en~ —
ry
-
bed “oat @. eres 2
mcd, ordered a, ana directed to averd, “within one 2 hundred and”
ms
‘
ea oes
ty” (120), days fron ihe dete of ta issuance of this Decree,
11 apififeants for AFDC in, ‘the one hundred tuo (202) counties”.
fiinois who were determinca eligible on or after December .) ee
e .
F where ‘such determinations were not made within thirty” (30)
From the date of application, AFDC assistance from the’ thir-
(30th) Gay after ‘he ae of application te the. date the
* ‘
icant's entitlewent ‘to, "AFDC. became effective. Such award of
ozctive paytients will be mailed ‘to those persons currently
iving ane within ons hundred tventy. (120) Gays from the
ance of this Decree with an explanatory letter, said etter
a
ng been first ot by plaintiffs’ attorney. . Any avard-
ived purszant: to this Paragraph ‘shall not be deened incone
esources under Article Iv, Section 4-1. 6 of the Tilinois
ic aia Code. For those Persons not Pr esently Ramrprotors
Sa ° “ *.
- oe rit ti - eo - _- at "2 ve te - — . -e. « ‘ °
Woe ee es on - - ‘ <9 “ - a? ®. ° - eo
= ° - i ce ee % <> . Se ee - ee a a ae -— - m,
= a oe. te re ee aoe 5 oe Pe ge i ee -*
4e
at. > - : * oe
oe O te “8 3 @*6 + ™
ds el, A certified letter pe Eat receipt requested),
letter having been first approved by plaintiffs' attorney,
be sent ‘to the last known address of the party, informing :
in rar pracenss and easily understandeble terns that, he is owed
e
ward ‘of retroactive assistance, with the amount “specified,
‘
t
he
TG PE.
o- ¢
: +f
2 « *
he Departuent, oF Public, Mes ang that he iene Slant ‘SUén | pen
sis within forty-five (4s) apn patos Bie: recdipt eo
. - Ps ae te Mie © + oo, ee. x .
et, ee ash Pie BP gt hg 9 o ope ei ee Be
.? . ‘ee > ¢ © I. : .
ro * eS ae 88 th ? ia .
- . es Bee fe owte Bo. °°*"e we %. were . pull a a. seer wore. ee Pid. a Pade oe ges
. os ‘2 a le eo, & en, “s 0+ DP ooy +e ad ae
TO If the County’ ‘Department of Public Aid has’ not a
: iveé such a ‘Feguest ‘for the “avard of retroactive Bayments |
- .
pag Ea wrens
in forty-five (45)° days ‘froa ae date of the returned re-
t, “the: right to ‘said award of retroactive payment shall be oy
e+e. o° bye & e 2
ited’ “sid the file shal be closed. digha = oe ee
: 7 wees the date of the issuance veil this Decree, the en- ‘
ement | of all eligible APDC applicants in the State of mi :
shall attach no later than the thirticth (30th) day efter
gate of application. In* ~~ case in which eligibility is :
rained subseguent to the thirtieth (30th) day after the
of application, the applicant shall be entitled to AFDC
stence retroactive to the. thirtieth (30th) aay, subject :
to the exception in paragraph S, ‘infra. If the applicant
en ied AFDC assistance retroactive ts _. thirtieth (30% th)
_Porsuant_ ‘“s paragraph 5,7 infra, ‘said ‘applicant ant receive
itten statenent explaining fa) that this denial wes besed on
failure or mite on the pert of the ‘applicant to weevite spe-
eit estential information, and (b) that the applicant nae the
t to appeal within sixty (60) days this decision of the
ty Department of Public Aid. £ ; Poi apiee Se
be The sole exception to the thirty-day_ requirement as
ned in paragraghs I and 4 fs in those cases “where it is in- -
ible to make a determination of eligibility » because of fail-
es any di isputes. ‘betwecn ihe ‘perties as te whether the -pro-
res and | steps outlined by the defendant” will fulfiln the re
3
-
ae
enonts of ‘this Decree wild be ‘resolved by | the ‘Court. | a oy 5
” ware *. ”
‘ 1 detopignt cena o. Swank shall. submit to ‘the peel and
sth df time since date of application, ‘for each county in the
e of Illinois this same information shall be provided to
Court ‘and “to the plaintiffs" “attorney for each ‘of the Six
hs following the month in which this Decree is granted. De
ant David Daniel shall submit to the Court ena to” the plain-
.
s' attorney for each of the six months following the month ~
hich this Decree’ is granted the chart, Analysis’ of "Regis—
d Applications Pending Investigation, Source: ‘Cook County
rtment of Public Aid - - Form CCDPA~264. : x
Defendant Harold oO. Swank ig directed to provide
es ‘of this Decree to each County Departnent of. Public Aid
ihe State of Illinois and to issue ‘an official Bulletin of
.o
-
rilinois Departeent of Public aid incorporating the provi-
s a this Decree within five (5): cays from the —s thereof.‘
bo. The: wehter required by paregras ph 3 of this Decrce ees
aved pending any appeals in this cause.” No later than one
re risk (220) days frou the date ‘the relief required t by -
“+ . a .
oe Meee “* .
* ae” .
- .
° .
‘ -7-
. oc
. ad in. ce s
se, a sod Ped Oe fey
_ . e bd
of AE tae 8 ne ae
tat, "*
-
écley on the ‘part of the .2pPlicant to" provide. essential en
.%%e *%a3 ~ aha
> ae
= Sng Sx
sation; ‘in such instances, the case record must she ‘that Se
a *e - fase
or failure results from ‘cixeunstances within the dppli-
-%.
s ‘control. and understanding. ‘In the future, part of ‘the ee
* -
Coe See = ~~. = ee ae.
exception t to ‘cireunvent the “enirey-aey action requiteasnt :
“2% Se ee os
~<
gi Nee on "ase
3s 2:
of es
ot
*e:
be viewed as 2 violation of this Decree. oe eS rr
piegerte an) pote Se
" plaintife cleeys Rodriguez and her minor chilaren, z
“ee FEaneisco, | Willie, and Higuel otix Sine: are entitled to
ard of AFDC assistance ‘for the period from: October 17, srt
veisber 30, 1969, “inclusive. Plaintife hrs. Loretha Smith, :
alf of her minor children sins ‘kelly, Debra Kelly, and
nd Kelly, ig -entitled to an award. of ‘AFDC assistance f
eriod from September. 20, ‘1969, to December me 1969,
; Reaction 8255.1 of the Illinois categorical Assistance 5
I of the Illinois Department of mere Aid shall rot be 2a
o. the award of retroactive paynents in srbecianes with ea
of this Decree, and further, that section shall be deened
and void and there shall be Ro. bar’ to the oward of ‘eat ie
retroactive’ to the thirtieth ms fron the Pane: of f epplica—
> nae >= os ° ae a ° -*
- I : - + iy : “ a - Fe aed ce -* = aay
° ag . . Bp ™ . - “9 ee ‘ss - Big a
«8 >. ad
8. “article Iv, ‘section - -8 of the Illinois Public aia
shall not be 2 bar te any relief afforded by paragraph 7
is Decree. . DES RY ae es . es tee
é . “7 . - . ix
i Within fifteen (15) days from the date of ‘this eas :
dant Harold o< Swank ‘shall submit to the court and the.
He ee + eremes PS Tt ewmme owes - + am 6 oe
ae eee ioe $025 Ses tad ee Fp wigs os BO roe PP pee
= paragraph 3" Boconee “effective, éefentiznt Harold oO. Swank sha shall
b:08 were, 6
sa Sz a? ee . Ye Bees =f Pao ae oes fat
2 peta to the’ “court ‘an affidavit to the effect tha the avers” ei :
rt IS -
t been’ notion *
‘re,
tend letters equines under Baresreph 3. have in “tad
‘
513. ; thse Decree “Shall ‘be binding ‘upon nerola ow Svank;
ved Pa 3 a 2-35 nd
3." 1 fom ken Pe Sage tent? -
the David Denicl, Beeerd - Barrett, the Tlinois ‘Doparinent ot
<2". SF ee Sa 2 ~ 3:
.
eee public aia,” te ‘Gosk County Departuent “3 ‘Public ‘aia, and the
oa County ‘conptrolier’ 's Office, their officers, agents, ser~ a
; “wants, eee. une their successors, and upon those persons
in active concert or participation with then who receive actus
we “ps °
-
4" ‘notice ef the order by yeseeuns ‘services or otherwise.
= Me This. Court shall retain cont ining forfediction over :
-
ar
: sf Roger J. Kiley
er J. Kiley, svege
ted States Court of appeals
: BERNARD ¥. DECKER
“fst Bernard M. Decker
sores H. Decker, sucese
Ss, - Gakeed States District Court
iss tasters L. will
iit i.- Hubert Lo Sill, succe
“oF 37.", United Stones District soem ty
8:5
“
i a
‘
‘3
&
‘7
YY a ’
cota * Here “oe
ore egese tir:
ae
—
CuIC!2d
BUOILVIT144¥
tre's
Kutt
YL &
we
a
a)acvy
v)aevy
ogy
, IVLO%
Cr ae] Uaetir pROLNVOLIsaATY
oot
oot
oot
*00T
*00T
0°00T
‘
Visti
root
root
0°00T
oot : o°o0Tt «| TT
CRUST] UHRTTY TRE] OT
so2eg g 50 T ePug
Du SLANXD
—_— ——
—
¢
08
:
i
Desmeiall bused
ta.ton
oT
ty
oy
OL6T ‘Wa OXIAON
M9SVAIS MEDE ~ CIV STAN 40 INDMuvdad ALAMOS NICO $29ExC3
MOTIVOTISZAST OLTCISd SIOTLVOTIddy G3¥SISIORe £2 SIBKIV--V
— UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
-
Bsoun JORDAN, by his next friend,
JEANETTE BRYANT, individually,
and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs. No. 71C 70
Illinois Department of Public
Aid; DAVID DANIEL, Director,
Cook County Department of
Public Aid; EDWARD J.
Comptroller of Cook County,
individually and in their
official capacities,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
HAROLD O. SWANK, Director, )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause coming on for hearing on plaintiffs‘ motion
for a temporary restraining order, and the defendants having re-
ceived notice and being represented by counsel, and the Court
having considered the affidavits, exhibits, and memorandum pre-
sented by plaintiffs, and also the representations and arguments
of counsel for all parties, and being fully advised in the pre-
mises; and
. The following findings of fact have been admitted by
the Cook County Department of Public Aid:
1. Plaintiff John Jordan applied to the Cook: County De~-
artment of_Public Aid on September 18, 1970, for Aid to the
isabled under the Aid to the Aged, Blind, and Disabled (herein-
fter “AABD") program; and
‘2. As of January 14, 1971, the application of John Jordan
or AABD had not yet been acted upon by the Cook County Depart-
ant of Public Aid, and John Jordan had received no assistance
atsoever;
3. Plaintiff, John Jordan, age sixty-one, with the assis-
ance of his friends, cooperated in all respects with the Cook
Pounty Department of Public Aid, furnished all information re-
Tuested by the Cook County Department of Public Aid, and has
been ahd is eligible for AABD.
4. Numerous other persons have made applications for AABD
> the Cook County Department of Public Aid and many such appli-
sixty days as to disabled under AABD, with a number having been
pending longer than six months;
: 5. Defendant Harold 0. Swank is the Director of the Illi-
ois Department of Public Aid and is charged with statewide
ndministration of the categorical aid programs, including Aid to
2 Aged, Blind and Disabled, and with establishing regulations
carry out the statutory provisions of such programs. Defen-
fant David Daniel is the Director of the Cook County Department
of Public Aid, an agency of the Illinois Department of Public
sw
id, and is responsible for’ administering the categorical aid
programs, including AABD, in Cook County. Defendant Edward J.
Barrett is the Comptroller of Cook County, responsible for the
i signing of emergency welfare checks in Cook County; and
The Court further finding:
6. The named plaintiff has brought this action as a
Wclass action on his own behalf and on behalf of all other per-
sons in Illinois eligible for AABD who are required by defen-
dants to wait longer than thirty days after application, as to
aged dnd blind under AABD, and longer than sixty days after
application as to disabled under AABD, for a determination of
eligibility and receipt of their first assistance check.
7. This class is so numerous that joinder of all members
is impracticable. There are questions of law and fact common
to the class. The claims of plaintiff are typical of the claims
Plaintiffs will fairly and edequately protcct the
ot the class.
interests of the class. The defendants have acted or rofused to
act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making
appropriate injunctive relief with respect to the class as a
whole.
8. Those persons composing this class are, and will con-
tinue to be, irreparable injured by the failure of the defen-
dants to process their applications and to provide AABD assis-
tance within the maximum time periods permissible under federal
regulations. Plaintiff, John Jordan, does not have funds with
which to obtain proper and necessary food and clothing, and
medical and dental care. The named plaintiff, John Jordan, is
suffering, and will suffer immediate, certain, and irreparable
injury by reason of the failure of the Cook County Department
_ of Public Aid to approve his application and to provide him AABD.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties to this
action and over the subject matter of the action.
2. The hereinabove findings of facts establish that the
Cook County Department of Public Aid and the Illinois Department
of Public Aid have not complied in Cook County with the Handbook
‘of Public Assistance Administration, Part IV, Sections 2200 (b) (3)
(4), 2300(b) (3) (5), and the Court is at this time satisfied that
_ plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the mandatory and binding
nature of these regulations. Rodriguez v. Swank, 69 C 2615 (N.
D. Ill., 1970) (three-judge court).
3. This action is properly maintainable as a class action.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 23(a) and (b).
4. Plaintiff and the clasé he represents will suffer im-
mediate and irreparable injury if a temporary restraining order
is denied.
5. - Plaintiff and the class he represents are entitled to
a temporary restraining order as hereinafter set forth.
The defendants hereby give thcir consent.to the exten-
-sion of this order until April 15, 1971. However, such consent
to the extension of this order shall not b: ‘leemed to be a waiver
by the defendants of any right to app-rl thu. order or to move
this Court at any time to vacate, stay, or dissolve this order.
Issucd at /0:30f). -m., January al ° fie cle pro tunc,
effective 12:01 p.m., January 1‘, 1971.
- Se > & , A. tort:
United States pis trict Judge
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED That the
defendant David Daniel, as Director of the Cook County Depart-
ment of Public Aid, and his employees are enjoined from fail-
ing to make a determination of eligibility on the AABD applica-
tion of John Jordan any later than 4:30 p.m., Friday, January
15, 1971, and, in the event his application is approved, de-
fendants are enjoined from failing to issue any later than 4:30
p-m., Friday, January 15, 1971, to John Jordan his AABD entitle-
ment; and
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the defendants, their
agents and employees, and all persons in active concert and par-
ticipation with them, are hereby enjoined from failing to make
determinations of eligibility and providing AABD assistance for
those determined eligible, within thirty days from the date of
application as to aged and blind applicants for AABD and within
sixty days from the date of application as to disabled appli- ‘
cants for AABD in the State of Illinois except in those cases
where it is impossible to make a determination of eligibility
because of failure or delay on the part of the applicant to
provide essential information within the applicant's control
and understanding, pending final adjudication of this cause.
PROVIDED That defendants are hereby given | until April
15, 1971, to act on all AABD applications now pending, and on
all AABD (D) applications filed between the effective date of this
Order and February 15, 1971, and on all AABD (A) and (B) appli-
cations say ad between the effective date of this Order and March
15, 1971. ‘ men
& a
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE KORTHERY DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, . :
EASTERN DIVISION ‘eb i i
JAN 2.8 1371
H. STUART CUMNINGHAS
ee
JOHN JORDAN, by his next friend,
JEANETTE BRYANT, indivicually
and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs. NO. 71C 70
Illinois Department of Public
Aid; DAVID DANIEL, Director,
Cook County Department of
Public Aid; EDWARD J. BARRETT,
Comptroller of Cook County,
individually and in their
official capacities,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
HAROLD O. SWANK, Director, )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants. )
AMENDED CCMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT, “EQUITABLE AND OTHER
APPROPRIATE RELIEF
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ~
1. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, seeks primarily to have
this Court declare mandatory and binding on the defendants
federal regulations requiring (a) determinations of eligibility,
and (b) actual receipt of Aid to the Aged, Blind’ and Disabled
(hereinafter AABD) for those determined eligible, within
thirty days from the date of application as to aged and blind
applicants for AABD, and within sixty days from the date of
application as to disabled applicants for AABD, and further
declaring void all state statutes and regulations inconsistent
with said mandatory federal regulations. Plaintiff also seeks
wy es
—<—
a declaration that the Illinois public Aid Code, ch. 23, Sec-
tion 3-1, Ill.Rev.Stat., federal law, 45 C.F.R. § 233.20(a) (1) (2)
(iii), and.equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the
fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution ,require
AABD to be paid from the date cf application if the applicant
meets the eligibility conditions at the time of application.
JURISDICTION
2. Jurisdiction is conferred on this court by 28
U.S.C. § 1343(3) (4) and by 28 U.s.c. s 1331. The amount in
controversy) exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum
or value of $10,000.00.
3- Plaintiff's acticn for declaratory and injunctive
relief, and for benefits wrongfylly withheld -is authorized by:
(a) 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 and Rule 57 of the
~ Pederal Rules of Civil procedure, which relate to
declaratory judgments; ; |
| (b) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which provides redress
“for the-deorivation Under color of law.of rights,
privileges, and immunities secured bythe Constitu-
tion and laws of the United States.
PLAINTIFFS —
4. The named plaintigg, John Jordan, age sixty-one,
‘lives at 4241 W. Calumet, Chicago, Tllinois, ay a room of the
apartment of Jeanette Bryant.
5. John Jordan has 2 substantial mental deficiency
‘
_.. 38
-3-
and functions at the level of a small child. Jeanette Bryant
generally supervises most matters affecting the everyday life
of John Jordan. .
CLASS ACTION
: 6. The named plaintiff brings this action on his
own behalf and pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all other persons simi-
larly situated.
- DEFENDANTS
7. Defendants are as follows: (a) Harold 0. Swank,
is the Director of the Illinois Department of Public Aid and
is charged with statewide administration of the public assistance
programs, including Aid to the Aged, Blind and Disabled, and
with establishing regulations to carry out the statutory pro-
visions of such programs; (b) David Daniel is the-Director of
the Cook County Department of Public Aid, an agency of the
Illinois Department of Public Aid, and is responsible for
administering the public assistance programs in Cook County;
and (c) Edward J. Barrett, is the Comptroller of Cook County,
responsible for the signing of emergency welfare checks.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8. John Jordan has a substantial mental impairment :
and functions at the level of a small child. He is unable to
~
v
read or to recognize and count money.. His intelligence is so
limited that he requires supervision in most matters affecting ~
his everyday life. His mental impairment is of a permanent
nature and substantially impairs his ability to perform labor
or services or to engage in any useful occupation.
9. On or about September 18, 1970 John Jordan dieties
for Aid to the Disabled at the Oakland office of. the Cook County
Department of Public Aid.
10. At the time of his application for Aid to the
Disabled John Jordan met all of the eligibility conditions for
Aid to the Disabled, and he still meets said eligibility condi-
tions, and is in all ways qualified for such assistance.
11. John Jordan, or friends acting on his behalf, have
cooperated with the Cook County Department of ‘Public Aid in all
respects and have furnished all information requested by the
Cook County Department of Public Aid and its employees.
12. The Cook County Department of Public Aid has yet
to act on John Jordan's application for Aid to the Disabled and
John Jordan has not received any such assistance from the
defendants as of the date of filing this law suit.
‘13. The sole reason for the delay is that the case-
worker of the Cook County Department of Public Aid assigned to
John Jordan's application has not had time to act on John Jordan’
application. tag
14. John Jordan has no income or assets except for
s
the approximately $2.00 he-earns by working at a drugstore one
day a week and other infrequent odd jobs involving manual labor.
15. John Jordan is in dire need of monetary and medical
assistance. He does not eat properly and is suffering from
malnourishment because of lack of sufficient funds and is
presently sick with a cold and cough and in need of medical
care. Also he lacks vision in one eye and needs to be fitted
for glasses. ;
16. Because his application for Aid to the Disabted
has not been acted upon and approved, John Jordan has suffered
and will continue to suffer irreparable injury, loss, and
damage because of the lack of adequate funds to purchase those
necessities requisite for a minimum standard of life compatible
with health and well-being.
COUNT I
17. ‘ Count I is brought as a class action by the named
plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The class is composed of all persons
in Illinois eligible for Aid to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled,
(AABD) who are required by defendants to wait longer than 30 days
after application, as to aged and blind under AABR, <74 longer ---~
than 60 days after application, as to disabled under AABD, for a
determination of eligibility and receipt of their first assistanc
check. This class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
.
b_ 44 : : at
impractical. There are questions of law and fact common to ;
the class. The claims of plaintiff are typical of the claims
of the class. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class.
18. Illinois participates in the Federal government 's
Program of Aid to the Aged, Blind, and Disabled (AABD), estab-
lished by the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Subchapter XVI, §§
1381 et. seq. As a condition thereof, Illinois is required to
conform with the requirements of the Social Security Act and
sseatiniens promulgated thereunder by the United States Depart-
ment of Health, Education and Welfare.
19. The Social Security Act provides that
"all indivicuals wishing to make application under
the (AABD) plan shall have opportunity to do so and
that such aid or assistance shall be furnished with
reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals."
42 U.S.C. § 1382(a) (8).
20. At all times relevant herein, the regulations of the
Department of Health, Education and Welafre have required that
action on applications for assistance for the agee and blind undex
AABD be taken within thirty days, and action on ‘applications for
the disabled under AABD, be taken within sixty days, including for
those determined eligible, the actual receipt of AABD assistance
within the respective maximum time periods. Handbook of Public
Assistance Administration, Part IV, Section 2200 (b) (3) (4), Sectic
2300 (b) (3) (5). ReneS ; . a
21. The defendants maintain that these abovementioned
regulations are not mandatory and binding on them with respect to
AABD applications.
-7-
22. As of the end of Novenber, 1970, approximately 903%
of the applications for assistance for the aged and blind under
AABD made to the Cook County Department of Public Aid had been
pending longer than 30 days. As of the end of November, 1970,
approximately 70% of the applications for aid to the disabled
under AABD made at the Cook County Department of Public Aid had
been pending between one and six months and approximately 20% of
the same applications had been pending for six months and over.
23. The rules and regulations of the defendant Illinois
Department of Public Aid with respect to time standards for pro-
cessing of AABD applications, Illinois Categorical Assistance
Manual, Sections 4004-4004.3, are in violation a the require-
ments of the Social Security Act and regulations quoted above in
paragraphs 19 and 20.
24. Further, at all times relevant herein, Section 8255
(and subsections thereunder), Illinois Department of Public Aid,
Categorical Assistance Manual, has provided that initial grants
(including AABD) may be authorized only for the month in which
the application has been approved, but not for any prior months.
25. Pursuant to Section 8255, Illinois Categorical Assis~-
tance Manual, plaintiff John Jordan is barred from receiving
AABD benefits for October, November, and December, 1970 in viola
tion of the Social Security Act and regulations quoted above in
paragraphs 19 and 20. | | ;
26. By failing to follow the maximum, permissible tine
standards under federal lane -Gqunbed above in paragraphs 19 and 20
qb
:
Br era
ve
5 iti
the defendants and their agents acting under color of state law
% %
have unlawfully deprived plaintiffs of AABD assistance and their <—
rights under the Social Security Act and the regulations issued
pursuant thereto.
27. No adequate administrative remedy or remedy at law is
available to the plaintiffs. |
28. Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable damage to their
health and well-being and will continue to suffer severe and
irreparable injury because of the failure of defendants and their
agents to comply with the respective 30 and 60 day requirements
relating to AABD applicants. .
COUNT II
29. Count II is brought as a class action by the named
plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(a)(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. The class is composed of all applicants for
AABD in Illinois who meet the eligibility requirements when they
apply but are denied benefits fae the intervening period from the
date of application to the month in which their grant is authorize
This class is so numerous that joinder of all members is imprac~
tical. There are questions of law and fact conan to the class.
The claims of plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class.
Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class.
30. Some eligible applicants for AABD similarly situated to
John Jordan applied for AABD benefits in September, 1970, and were
determined eligible in said month and began receiving assistance
in and for said month.
-9-
31. Some eligible applicants similarly situated to John
Jordan applied for AABD benefits in September, 1970, and were
determined eligible in October, some were determined eligible in
November, and some were determined eligible in December, and as
a consequence, said applicants began receiving assistance in and
for October, November, and December respectively, but not for any
period prior to the month in which they were determined eligible.
32. By delaying determinations of eligibility, the defendan
lessen enpentiteres to the needy for basic subsistence payments.
« 33. To condition the date upon which AABD benefits begin to
the speed of the administrative process, is to establish wholly
arbitrary and invidious classifications between similarly situated
equally needy persons.
34. Section 8255 of the Illinois Categorical Assistance
Manual is invalid and unconstitutional on its face and as applied
to plaintiffs in violation of the equal protection clause of the
fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
35. The policy of the defendant Illinois Department of Publ
Aid, and the practices of its 102 agent County Departments of Publ
Aid throughout the State of Illinois, do not require AABD assistan
be paid from the date of application when the applicant meets all
of the eligibility conditions at that time.
36. The policy and practices of the defendants described in
paragraph 35 above and in this Count are in violation of the Socia
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et. seq. and federal regulations
issued thereunder, 45 C.F.R. § 233.20(a) (1) (2) (iii), and Departmen
of Health, Education and Welfare Handbook of Public Assistance
_ «=~
°
-10-
Administration, Part II, § 3300, § 4300.
37. The policy and practices of the defendants described
in paragraph 35 above and in this Count are in violation of the
Illinois Public Aid Code, ch. 23, Section 3-1, Ill. Rev. Stat.
which provides that financial aid .
“shall be given under this: Article to or in behalf
of aged, blind, or disabled persons who meet the
eligibility conditions..."
38. Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer
irreparable injury to their health and well-being because of the
policy and practice of the defendants described in paragraph 35
above and in this Count. .
39. No adequate ad:.inistrative remedy or adequate remedy
at law is available to plaintiffs. ;
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, that this Honorabie ,
Court:
1. Enter a temporary restraining order enjoining the
defendants, their successors in office, agents and employees,
and all other persons in active concert and participation with
them, from continuing to cause irreparable harm to plaintiff and
other persons similarly Situated by failing to make dpterninations
of eligibility and provicing AABD assistance for those determined
eligible, within 30 cuys from the date of application as to aged
and blind applicents for AABD, and Within 60 days fro the date
of applicativ as tu disabled applicants for AABD.
-__. 46 7? - aa
-li-
2. Enter preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining
defendants, their successors in office, agents and employees,
and all other persons in active concert and participation with
them, from failing to comply with the federal 30 and 60 day
requirements with respect to applicants for AABD in the State of
Illinois.
3. Enter a final judgment declaring Illinois Categorical
Assistance Manual Sections 4004 and 8255 (and subsections there-
uncer) as appliéd to applicants for AABD invalid insofar as they
are inconsistent with the Social Security Act and regulations
issued pursuant thereto.
4. Enter a final judgment declaring that the illinois
public Aid Code, ch. 23, Sections 3-1, Ill. Rev. Stat, the Socia
Security Act and regulations thereunder, and equal protection of
the laws as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the United
States Constitution require that applicants for AABD who meet the
eligibility conditions for AABD at the time of their application
are entitled to AABD benefits from the date of application.
5. Enter a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants
to award to the entire class of plaintiffs all AABD benefits
wrongfully withheld. : :
6. Allow punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.00
against Harold 0. Swank.
-]2-
7. Allow plaintiff his costs herein, and also wenn?
him and all persons similarly situated, such additional or
alternative relief as may seem to this Court to be just,
proper and equitable.
= subel tted,
Meth ¥ {ele ie 4%
~ . idon Roodman ;
Sheldon Roodman
Kenneth K. Howell 7” i 4 MMS
Commpnity Legal Counsel : © tL Witte
116 South Michigan Avenue Kenneth K. Howell
Chicago, Illinois 60603 : ;
726-0157
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
?.
Ii THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 7OUES 16 PA 4 33
FOR THE WORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ®
EASTERN DivVISION
CLERK
_/- CTR AAI
5. CISTR. 2s Cou:
JORDAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs. KO. 71.C 70
OLD O. SWANK, et al.,
eee ee et et eee ee
Defendants.
«
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS DANIEL AND BARRETT
TO PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT
Now come the defencants, DAVID DANIEL, Director, Cook
ty Department of Public Aid, and, EDWARD J. BARRETT, Comptroller
Cook County, by their attorney, EDWARD V. HANRAHAN, State's Attorney
Cook County, Illinois, and for answer to plaintiffs’ amended com-
int state as follows:
No answer is necessary for paragraph One.
Paragraph Two is admitted. . |
Paragraph Three is admitted.
Paragraph Four is admitted.
‘ paragraph Five is admitted.
6. cm response to Paragraph Six, these defendants deny
that this action is properly hrought pursuant to Rule 23: {|
(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. \
oC ~_ ag
ES SS mae
_ In response to Paragraph Seven, these defendants admit
allegations as to then.
Paragraph Eight is Admitted.
Paragraph Nine is Admitted.
Paragraph Ten is Admitted.
Paragraph Eleven is denied.
In answering Paragraph Twelve, these defendants edmit
that when the original complaint in this action was filed,
‘John Socten had received no assistance. They deny thet the
Cook County Department of Public Aid has yet to act on Mr.
Jordan's application and further state that the application
has been approved and Mr. Jordan wes given emergency assist-
ance to provide support and maintenance until his first
regular check under AABD will arrive.
13. Paragraph Thirteen is denied.
14. In response to Paragraph Fourteen, these defendants
have no knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or falsity of the allegations; they therefore neither
admit nor deny the same but demand strict proof thereof.
1s. Paragraph Fifteen is immaterial insofar as John Jordan's
application has been approved and a temporary restraining
order has been entered in this action. Whatever is not
atin ;
48
immaterial in Paragraph Fifteen is neither admitted nor .
denied due to a lack of knowle@ge on the part of these
defendants and they demand strict proof of those allegations.
16. In response to Paragraph Sixteen, these defendants have
no knowledge sufficient to noene belief as to the allegations;
they therefore neither admit nor deny the same but demand
strict proof thereof.
COUNT I .*
17. Paragraph Seventeen is denied.
18. In response to Paragraph Eighteen, these defendants
admit thet Illinois participates in the Federal Government's
program of Aid to the Aged, Blind and Disabled’ (AABD) but
state that they are only bound to conform to the recuirenents
of the Social Security Act and regulations promulgated there-
under by the United States Department of Health, Education and
Welfare where participation makes conforming to the above man-
datory.
19. The language of the Social Security Act as Set out in
Paragraph Nineteen is admitted.
20. Paragraph Twenty is denied.
21. Paragraph Twenty-One is admitted.
22. Paragraph Twenty-two is admitted.
“= ice 54 ' §9
23.
24.
25.
Paragraph Twenty-Three is denied.
Paragraph Twenty-Four is admitted.
In response to Paragraph Twenty-Five, these defendants
admit that by Section 8258, Illinois Categorical Assistance
Manual, John Jordan is barred from receiving AABD benefits
for October, November, and December, 1970 but deny that the
bar to retroactive assistance is in violation of the Social
Security Act and regulations quoted (sic) in paragraphs
Nineteen and Twenty.
26.
In response to Paragraph Twenty-Six, these defendants
deny that they have unlawfully deprived plaintiffs (sic) of
AABD assistance and their rights under thé Social Security
Act and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
27.
28...
29.
30.
Paragraph Twenty-Seven is denied.
Paragraph Twenty-Eight is denied.
COUNT II*
Paragraph Twenty-Nine is denied.
In response to Paragraph Thirty, these defendants
have no knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
or falsity of the allegations; they therefore neither admit
nor deny the same, but demand strict proof thereof.
av
31. In response to Paragraph Thirty-One, these defendants
have no knowledge sufficient to form a belicf as to the truth
or falsity of the allegations; they therefore neither admit
nor deny the same, but demand strict proof thereof.
32. Paragraph Thirty-Two is denied. |
33. Paragraph Thirty-Three is denied.
34. Paragraph Thirty-Four is denied.
35. Paragraph Thirty-Five is denied.
56. Paragraph Thirty-Six is denied.
37. In response to Paragraph Thirty-Seven the’ language of
that part of the Illincis Public Aid Code which is set out
is admitted; the balance of the allegations are denied.
38. Paragraph Thirty-Eight is denied.
39. Paragraph Thirty-Nine is denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
de Plaintif?, a welfare applicant, may not-maintain this
Settee foe welfare applicants have no property right in
assistance. If the Cook County Department of Public Aid is
winiktios Federal statutes or regulations in administering
the welfare system, the proper party to bring an action is
the Pepartment of Health, Education and Welfare.
-5- _ .
FO + 33 51
2. The regulations of the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare upon which the amended complaint is based are
not eomplied—-with mauwdoXs ory:
3. The regulations upon which the amended complaint is
based were promulgated without notice or an opportunity to
be heard by the Illinois and Cook County Department of
Public Aid in violation of the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
4. That the plaintiff in this case has failed to comply
with available, Federally-dictated procedure available when
an application for AABD is not acted upon with reasonable
promptness. 42 USC 1382 (a) (4) requires that State plans
for aid to the aged, blind and disabled:
“(4) provide for granting an opportunity for
a fair hearing before the State agency to any
individual whose claim for aid or assistance
under the plan is denied or is not acted upon
with reasonable promptness."
Such a plan is in existence and plaintiff has failed to
utilize it.
5. This is an improper class action since the facts con-
cerning each application are different. Further, the one
named plaintiff may not be a proper representative of both
classes.
WHEREFORE, these defendants pray that this Court:
1. Strike plaintiffs' amended complaint and dismiss
.
this ‘action; or
2. Enter judgment in favor of the defendants,
EDWARD V. HANRAHAN
State's Attorney of Cook County
) GC. Bw
James A. Rooney O
sistant State's Attorney
500 Civic Center
Chicago, Illinois 60602
321-8760
SCVRCE:s COCK COUNTY PECAN IEMLLO? PULLLC ALD = FORK CCIvHW 264
3k, 1970,
wl ah eh /
EY A SOV ; Tis ENSLEvoon . GABF
S3SENT a lpEncenz PERCENT | IIE2EE
200,¢ : 100,0 100.0
400.0 - 100.0
2100,0 bad
100.0 100.¢
Site
bee
' sm? fo
a
oO OWo®
“w
.
tov! Grwts
Cert? OM te
Ure ou
3
«
,
.
*
é
rf
hal
fo
Cc
min ao
S333
“-
*wPowte
to
oe
.
c
wes
teo\m FD
*
eo O2N
-
.
ft) © ~
NO vw
PTE RE RS 6 ESR BET SE RT ST a OE RTE 8S ST ETE Rete Tits BELL
ee ok 2 et
Wk fo
.
Owsve ce
- wr:
SF RECISTHALD APPLICATIONS PEDING I:WVESTIGATION { € 5)
: LOCK CORIY CSTAWDILNT OF PUBLIC ATR ~ TORS CCPA-264 aap
: PAAR, 2972 e
=_a CS Te ‘4 MEE FIOM Tae
ALISZLD CAPE LEL EV SIEI9°9 SAEPIELD BLL BP arr:
;
‘
'
’
SRMZER | ZE2CE NT | URMBER IEPROET | WL CENT) ot PT 8 A A A a
13 | 100.0 us | 100.0 159 | 100.0 158 | 100.0 2 | 100.0 428 | 292.2
7 100.0 | 7: 100.0 | 57 100.0 | 55 260.0 | 3 100.0 | 22 199.
- -« {fl 100.0 | 19 100.0 3 109,0 | « -j 3 $65.0
- -|] 2. 100.9 1 100.0 3 100.0 | « - 5 30.0
6 100.0 | § 2100.0 } 62 100.0 | 32 100.0 | 1 100.0 | 366 $63.0
9} 69.2 5 | 35.7 ‘37 | 23.3 100} 63.3 2 | 50.6 *} 2°
32 72.2 5 6 43.2 | 7 200.0 | 3 42.9 | 2b 42.2 | he 4% | 2 100.9 § 22.4
3 a -j- -}2 100.0 | & 21.1] 3 100,0 | - . 4 ines
A 3.2 4 °« = = = = - - - - - = - = =
tA 9 $2 20.0 | 2 33.3] 2 20.0} 9 uo] 8 25.8 | - - | 2 $.9 |
2 neh "%.5 3 « -|- -|- - - ~ | b7 71.2 | «, - - .
2,285] 37.2 ; 8} 40.0 3} 23.2 94 64.3 87 | 54.7 4s} 26.5 2 50.0 230; £2...
30) Be 7 3.8 | - * -|4 $7.2 | 33 57-9 | 33 23.6 | - “iu 6. |
an a ee | $2.0 | - «je. ° 1 36.8 ° ele - | 2 82.9 ;
16.3 : « -|- -/2 100.0 1 100,0 2 66.7 | « - ° -
85.2% @ - | 3 50.0 | & 60.0 | 6 56.1} 12 35.5 12 100.0 | 2% 65,4
20.2. 4 - = - = a = - . = 19 28°38 - = - -
T:} 12.8 : 5} 25.0 1} o7.7 © ~ 35} 22.0 3] 8.2 © ° ws | 32.6
on o7 4 « a a = m P - ; woke é A rg §
£5 2.7 4 2 50.0 | « a _e 8 42.2 - a - $ 49.°°
pt 19.6 : _ - - - - ‘ - — - 1 2-3 : ° 5 “ 82.6
"£4 29.3 A & 89.0 3 16.7 @ bead 27 32.9 12 3 of @ e 220 35.3
3% Liu i - a” - - = - - = 7 - - - - * a | -
re ne ee ee
IN THE UNITEC STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINGIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN JORDAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
HAROLD O. SWANK, Et al.,
et et ee eet ee ee ee ee
Defendants.
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, HAROLD O. SWANK
DIRECTOR, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AID
Defendant, HAROLD O. SWANK, Director, Illinois
Department of Public Aid, by his counsel, WILLIAM J. SCOTT,
Attorney Generali of Illinois answers the respective paragraphs
of the Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows:
A response is not required.
Admitted.
Admitted.
Admitted.
Admitted.
Deny that this is a proper class section.
Admitted.
Admitted.
Admitted.
10. Admitted.
ll. Denied.
12. Denied. The answering Defendant further avers
that these Plaintiffs have received the relief they sought in
the commencement of this section and therefore the issues are
moot.
13. Denied.
14. This defendant has insufficient knowledge to
eamit or deny ssid allegation.
15. This Defendant has insufficient knowledge to
admit or deny said allegation.
16. Denied.
17. Denied.
18. Admitted.
19. Admitted.
20. Denied.
21. Admitted.
22. Admitted.
23. Denied.
24. Admitted.
25. Deny that the treatment accorded Plaintiff is
violative of the Social Security Act and regulations.
26. Denied.
27. Denied.
28. Denied.
29. Denied.
30. Admit that some applications in areas of the state
are processed faster than others.
31. Admit that some areas of the state have processed
~
applications swifter than others.
32. Denied.
33. Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
Denied. .
37. Admit the existence of said statute but deny the
remainder of this allegation, and further deny that said statute
has been violated as to these plaintiffs.
38. Denied.
3%. Denied.
Affirmative Defense
The part of Count II seeking punitive damages from
Harold 0. Swank, Director of the Department of Public Aid, fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Wherefore, this Defendant requests the entry of an
Order dismissing the complaint and such other relief as is
proper.
L)t,,. OL
¢ “ me] hs a8
WILLIAM J. SCOTT
Attorney Genera gf 111inois
Attorney for Defendant,
Harold 0. Swank, Director,
Department of Public Aid
160 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
793-2590
Robert A. Maloney
Assistant Attorney General
of Counsel
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) ss
COUNTY OF COO K )
. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Sheldon Roodman James A. Rooney
Community Legal Counsel Assistant State's Attorney
116 South Michigan Avenue 500 Chicago Civic Center
Chicago, Illinois 60603 Chicago, Illinois 60602
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 22, 1971 the
attached Answer of Defendant Harold 0. Swank was filed with
the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Attorney Genéfal of Illinois
Attorney for the Defendant,
Harold 0. Swank, Director,
Department of Public Aid
160 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
793-25S0
Robert A. Maloney
Assistant Attorney General
of Counsel
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TLLTNoTet # 197}
_-BASTERN diate : meanest 1. NAPOU a ee
JOHN JORDAN, et al., ; IND stares DISTRICT Coup,
pie Plaintiffs ie Pat Me
vs. No. 71 C 70
HAROLD O. SWANK, et al.,
ee ee ee ee ee ee ee
Defendants.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS
Plaintiff, John Jordan, hereby requests, pursuant to
following documents:
1. The entire case record of the Cook County Department
f Public Aid pertaining to John Jordan, his application for AABD,
the disposition of said application.
> ¥e Any and all letters, memoranda, reports, and studies
. oo
ince February, 1968, with respect to the procedures for process-
ng Of AABD applications and the problems related thereto, the
procedures for making determinations of eligibility or ineligi-
bility for AABD applicants and the problems related thereto, the
ength of time between the date of application and the date of
uthorization and/or mailing of the first check for those AABD
__ 63
bad » —_* ass
- th sta addr aor ret.
ee eel
applicants determined eligible, and with respect to the time
from which initial “ae benefits are te be = to ee
4 - -~ Ct ES HOSS! He FS SSS 6 OeH Somes eee se ereeenn e+ Se ae
AABD applicants. ;
| 3. Any and all correspondance, memoranda, or other writ-
ten exchanges of information between the Cook County Department .
of Public Aid, and the Illinois Department of Public Aid with
respect to any of the matters described in paragraph 2, supra,
ang with respect to the problem of meeting the maximum time
limits established by the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare for the processing of AABD applications.
It is requested that the aforesaid production be made
on the 8th day of April, 1971, at 116 South Michigan, Room 700,
at 10:00 a.m.
hecho i ae
Sheldon H. Roodman
one of the
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Community Legal Counsel
116 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60603
726-0157
cK A ers ™
~
ene es ee ees
- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ee ee
i
ee ee ee ee es
'
_— «+ tee
"Somme JORDAN, et al.,
’
2
Plaintiffs
vs.
HAROLD 0. SWANK, et al.,
Defendants.
- NOTICE OF PILING
To: Attorney General State's Attorney. te
160 North LaSalle Street Civic Center, Room 500 -
Chicago, Illinois Chicago, T1linois 24, .
-%
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, That on March >-3”, 1971; we filed with
the Clerk of this Court plaintiffs' Request for Production: ‘of
= ne
Documents, a copy of which request is attached hereto! ie ;
Sheldon H. Rooc a
one of the
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Community Legal Counsel
116 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60603
726-0157
eee eee eee
“~~ --+?% CERTIPICATE OF SERVICE
ae Sheldon H. Roodman hereby certifies that he is one” Sie
of the attorneys for plaintiffs in the foregoing matter; and
that copies of the attached Notice and Request referred to
therein were served on the defendants by placing copies of
same in postage prepaid envelopes addressed to the above
addressees, and depositing same in the United States mailbox
at 116 South Michigan, Chicago, Illinois, this 2€ day of March,
1971.
Sheldon H. Roodman/
Re ES ey
mi.
IN THE UNITED STATES District courT * * ** LG lv
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ° og
EASTERN DIVISION ~ _ APRS - £71
1h, STUART CUdINGHAIA
| | MTT
JOHN JORDAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs. No. 71 C 70
HAROLD O. SWANK, et al.,
et ee ee eet eet ee eet ee ee
Defendants.
MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF.
DEFENDANTS ' ANSWERS
Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, respectfully move for
an order striking the defendants' answers to paragraphs 30 and
31 of plaintiffs' amended complaint or, in the alternative, deem-
ing admitted the plaintiffs' averments in paragraphs 30 and 31.
In support of their motion, plaintiffs submit the following memo-
randum.
Paragraphs 30 and 31 of the amended complaint read as
follows:
"30. Some eligible applicants for AABD similarly situ-
ated to John Jordan applied for AABD benefits in Sep-
tember, 1970, and were determined eligible in said
month.
"31. Some cligible applicants similarly situated to
John Jordan applied for AABD benefits in September,
1970, and were determined eligible in October, some
“ were determined eligible in November, and some were
determined eligible in December, and as a consequence,
said applicants began receiving assistance in and for
October, November, and December respectively, but not
for any period prior to the month in which they were
determined eligible." ‘
Defendant Harold 0. Swank, Director, Illinois Depart-
ment of Public Aid, answered these paragraphs as follows:
"30. Admit that some applications in areas of the
state are processed faster than others.
"31. Admit that some areas of the state have processed
applications swifter than others."
These answers are unresponsive to the averments in paragraphs 30
and 31, and either should be stricken, or the plaintiffs’ aver-
ments in paragraphs 30 and 31 should be deemed admitted. Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, 8(d).
Defendant David Daniel, Director, Cook County Depart-
ment of Public Aid, answered the averments in paragraphs 30 and
31 as follows:
"30. In response to Paragraph Thirty, these defendants
have no knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or falsity of the allegations; they therefore nei-
ther admit nor deny the same, but demand strict proof
thereof.
"31. In response to Paragraph Thirty-one, these de-
fendants have no knowledge sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth or falsity of the allegations; they
therefore neither admit nor deny the same, but demand
strict proof thereof.
Plaintiffs submit that the above quoted answer is not
made in good faith and that such assertion of ignorance is a sham.
It is peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant David
Daniel, Director, Cook County Department of Public Aid, when
- applications for AABD made in September, 1970, were disposed of.
In Rodriguez v. Swank, defendant David Daniel produced detailed
information on the same issue with respect to "ADC" applications..
Exhibit A attached hereto, entitled, “Disposition of ADC - Regu-
lar Applications Received by the Cook County Department of Public
Aid During August, 1969."
Case law on this point clearly supports plaintiffs' mo-
tion. In American Photocopy Equipment Co. v. Rovico, Inc., 359
F.2d 745, 746-7 (7th Cir., 1966), a patent infringement case, the
court stated:
"We hold that, in view of the existing circumstances,
this failure of plaintiff to frankly reply on a mat-.
. ter, which it, as patent owner and-manufacturer must
have had within its knowledge, exhibits a lack of
‘fairness which completely discredits its statement
that it is without knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of said‘averment of
defendant ... ‘an answer asserting want of knowledge
‘sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of facts
alleged ina complaint does not serve as a denial if
the assertion of ignorance is obviously sham. In such
circumstances, the facts alleged in the complaint stand
admitted.'”
A similar holding, often cited for the same proposi-
tion, is Ice Plant Equipment Co. v. Martocello, 43 F.Supp. 281,
282-83 (E.D. Pa., 1941):
"Rule 8(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure ... spe-
cifically authorizes a response of this kind [lack of
knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliet]
and provides that it shall have the effect of-a denial.
-The rule provides no exceptions. This court, however,
has held in several cases that the rule does not apply
if the fact as to which want of knowledge is asserted
_ ds to the knowledge of the court so plainly and neces-~-
sarily within the defendant's knowledge that his aver-
ment of ignorance must be palpably untrue. In such
case, the resort to the formal denial is plainly in
bad faith and for the mere purpose of delay.“ :
Mes:row’
-To the same effect,Mecirnv. Duggan, 240 F.2d 751, ai (8th Cir.
1957).
=-3-
_. 69
fp don
_ 7 Sheldon H.
one of the
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Community Legal Counsel
116 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60603
726-0157 ~
ee a Te
Es i e . ‘5s rl ~ . °-,;
~ - .
Bat. ° . . ae? = s ¢ Me Bu 3 “ o .
» Fé cml 3 = ms steeds * ~ ” -*m . s ‘ad pert
: ] > COOK COUNTY DEPARTXINT OF PUBLIC AIO oN ag Lo ea te ae
acme “ Wee 20 oo comet ere ee.
re
eh ir. Jetson @. Furray, Assistant Chief From — Shires “P. Mean. Suvesviso:
aacen BaTeou of Resources end Lege) Services gaaass Stetistics ent Anclysis
: see yee . *. ~*~ ¥ $ ° “
eR : ° . .
a os i : =e ‘ .
: In eccozisnce with your request for » statistics? dete relative te the-pendins mai
)- “ease “Rodriquet vs. Suatk, Federal District Court Case Mo. Ge 2615", ve suiait
‘the following infarction regarding — in Cook ouy for xe-R a the
sae of August, 1969: tees . oe ee
Coat. : i _ Bamber - Percent renargaaiiee ar ater Percent OF Diez 02
wat geek Tepeals ES a eh
‘228 me re ce Bees oe
=a “ . ‘ ¢* 8 *
Stion Beective 8/69 651 "28.8 518 “a 133: «39.2
Sipestttoa Séfoctive 9/89 err * 30.0 "963 - 36.6 ms _ AF > oe
o—Foateies serectsve 20/85 “386 apa. ao: .@ ae
io tice Eetectire 2°/69 13” ; % cn. wee. 1.9 ‘ 27 “al “9 thes 3
ttten Effective 12/ we O06 3° OF 2 Obe o-
Dispositions Er. aa mn se oe a
=i oe ore ee ee ee ee,
<ok ; Ss: . ss
- Pi ee: Azptications =< - -3-- peti ce. es sath. gee apn eee
“Ttispose2 of 2% the end UR Oe ee ee eee ee eS ee ee
ict oe 1959 3 383 na 16.9 i: om . . és
“ owe aac et a. ar eo malt : om 3 oe x” ~3e° are one ee
>: wie, Ee, a ee eRe Pees >
SQ EP SET Me SST EE Tite ie :
ay? 4 Ri — . ae See Se uu
ae ee ap aigiaigicr he ee uty RTS NE. shve “tee
Pees es anata > ace mee pert = < ease oe sr et tee ee
os PST SSS TS ae tie oe ee “
Be ee EX a Ce ae
>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
APRS - 3371
H. STUART CUNNINSAM
At, eg ES
CiERK
JOHN JORDAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs. No. 71C 70
HAROLD O. SWANK, et al.,
ee ee ee ee ee ee eee
Defendants.
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs, by their attorneys,-respectfully move for
the entry of a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants
from failing to mail AABD checks or notifications of denial of
AABD assistance for aged or blind applicants for AABD any later
than thirty days after the date of application and for disabled
applicants for AABD any later than sixty days after the date of
application, as required by 45 C.F.R. § 206.10, published in
36 Fed. Reg. 3864-65 (Feb. 27, 1971), ‘until this case is finally
adjudicated, based ‘upon the affidavit and exhibits filed in support
of plaintiff's earlier motion for a temporary restraining order and
based upon the defendant David Daniel's submissions to the Court of
the December 1970, January and February 1971, reports entitled,
Analysis of Registered Applications Pending Investigation, Source :
Cook County Department of Public Aid - Form CCPA-264.
| Le oS ae
: on H. Roodman
as : one of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Community Legal Counsel Sap f,
116 S. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, Illinois 60603
726-0157
. §9
UNITE. D STATES PISTRIGT COURT..NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS °
. SF ye :
: ca EASTERN 2__ DIVISION
to ‘mee trend f A tee a ee
Name of Presiding Judge, Honorable £LEXA0—2 J. MAPO?1
“we IC10 pate APR 1519 a
of Cause sen heal 0, ewan,
{ Statement te a ee
am 2 weit Lid ital Z:
MAN! 2s ree Gr) spe EL: wad ez; ins
¢ ruled of this hae. O.ton require sro ‘to“furnish the names of all parties entitled to
“notice of the entry of an order and the names and addresses of their attorneys. Please
do this immediately below (separate lists may be appended).
Reserve space below for notations by minute clerk
‘J 2
‘
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHEPN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JOUN JORDAN, by his next friend,
JEANETTF BRYANT, individually,
and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
HAROLD O. SWANK, Director,
Illinois Department of Public
Aid; DAVID DANIEL, Director,
Cook County Department of
Public Aid; EDWARD J. BARRETT,
Comptroller of Cook County,
individually and in their
official capacities,
Defendants.
This matter coming on for hearing on plaintiffs‘ motion
for a preliminary injunction on Count I of the amended complaint,
and the defendants having received notice and being represented
by counsel, and the Court having considered the amended complaint,
affidavits, exhibits, and memoranda presented by plaintiffs,
answers and exhibits of the defendants, and also the representa-
tions and arguments of counsel for all parties in open court, and
being fully advised in the premises; it makes the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff John Jordan applied to the Cook County
Department of Public Aid on September 18, 1970, for Aid to the
ae 3 p ae = ai
SE a OY I LS ~
Disabled under the Aid to the Aged, Blind and Disabled (herein-
after a" Program; and
2. Plaintiff, John Jordan, age shits with the
assistance of his friends, cooperated in all respects with the
Cook County Department of Public Aid, furnished all information
requested by the Cook County Department of Public Aid, and has
ton and is eligible for AABD;
3. As of January 14, 1971, the application of John
Jordan for AABD had not yet been acted upon by the Cook County
Department of Public Aid, and John Jordan had received no assis-
tance whatsoever;
4. Pursuant to the temporary restraining order pre-
viously entered by this Court, John Jordan was determined eli-
gible for AABD(D) and was issued AABD assistance. John Jordan
was granted AABD assistance for the month of January, 1971 but
ho assistance for any period prior to January 1, 1971;
5. Numerous other persons have made -applications for
AABD to the Cook County Department of Public Aid ‘and many such
applications have been pending in excess of thirty days from the
date of application as to aged and blind ander AABD and in excess
of sixty days as to disabled under AABD, with a number having
been pending longer than six months;
6. Defendant Harold 0. Swank is the Director of the
Illinois Department of Public Aid wk is charged with. statewide
administration of the categorical aid programs, including Aid to
+ WS 62
-3<
the Aged, Blind and Disabled, and with establishing regulations
to carry out the statutory provisions of such programs. Defen-
dant David Daniel is the Director of the Cook County Department
of Public Aid, an agency of the Illinois Department of Public
Aid and is responsible for administering the categorical aid
programs, including AABD, in Cook County. Defendant Edward J.
Barrett is the Comptroller of Cook County, responsible for the
signing of emergency welfare checks in Cook County; and
7. The named plaintiff has brought this Count I as a
class action on his own behalf and on behalf of all other per-
sons in Illinois eligible for AABD who are required by defendants -
‘to wait longer than thirty days after application, .as to aged
and blind under AABD, and longer than sixty days after application
as-to disabled under AABD, for a determination of eligibility
and receipt of their first assistance check.
8. This class is so numerous that joinder of all mem-
bers is impracticable. There are questions of law and fact common
to the class. The claims of plaintiff are copdeal of the claims
of the class. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. The defendants have acted or refused to
act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making
appropriate injunctive relief with respect to the class as a
whole.
9. Those persons composing this class are, and will ‘
continue to be, irreparably injured by the failure of the defen-
nung OO
dants to process their applications and to provide AA3D essis-
tance within the maximum time periods permissible under federal
regulations in that they lack sufficient funds to obtain
necessary food, clothing, housing and medical care.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ;
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the partis to
this,,action and over the subject matter of the action.
2. The hereinabove findings of facts establish that the
Cook County Department of Public Aid and the Illinois Department
of Public Aid have not cotplied with the Handbook of Public
Assistance Administration, Part IV, Sections 2200(b) (3) (4), 2300
(b) (3) (5) and 45 C.F.R. §206.10(a) (3), 36 Fed. Reg. 3864 (Feb-
ruary 27, 1971) and the Court is at this time satisfied that
plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the mandatory and binding
nature of these regulations. Rodriquez v. Swank, 318 F.Supp.
289 (N.D. Ill., 1970) (three judge court).
3. Count I of this action is properly maintainable as
a class action as defined in paragraph 7 supra. Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, 23(a) and (b). |
4. Plaintiff and the members of the class will suffer
immediate and irreparable injury if preliminary injunctive
relief is denied. |
5. Plaintiff and the class he represents are entitled
to a preliminary injunction as hereinafter set forth.
S56 aia of &
64
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the defen-
dants, their agents and employees, and all persons in active
concert and participation with them, are hereby enjoined from
failing to make determinations of eligibility and mailing either
AABD assistance or notifications of ‘denial of assistance,
within thirty days from the date of application as to aged and
blind applicants for AABD, and within sixty days: from the date of
application as to disabled spp icwnts for AABD in the State of
Illinois except in those cases where ‘it is impossible to Inake
a determination of eligibility because of failure or delay on
the part of the applicant to provide essential information
within the applicant's control and understanding. x
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the entitlement of all
eligible AABD applicants in the State of Tllinois shall attach no
later than the thirtieth (30th) day after application as to aged
and blind applicants, and no later than the sixtieth (60th) day
after application as to disabled applicants. In =a case in which
eligibility is determined subsequent to the thirtieth (30th) day
or sixtieth (60th) day, respectively, the applicant shall be enti-
tled to AABD assistance retroactive at the very least to the thir-
tieth (30th) day or sixtieth. (60th) day respectively, except in
those cases where it was impossible to make a determination of
eligibility because of failure or delay on the part of the eoeliaen
to provide essential information. In such latter cases, said
applicants must receive a written statement explaining (a) that
TE EER A SR
the denial was based on the failure or delay on the part of
the applicant to provide specified essential information, and
(b) that the applicant has the right to appeal within sixty
(60) days this decision of the County Department of Public Aid.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, to the extent that the Illinois
Department of Public Aid, Categorical Assistance ieannel;, Sec-
tions 4004, 8255, and 8256, and subsections thereunder, are con-
trary to this preliminary injunction, these sections are contra
to federal law, and are hereby declared null and void.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants award John
Jordan his entitlement to AABD assistance as hereinabove defined.
- IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this preliminary injunction
be and remain in full force and effect until final hearing of
this cause and until further order of this Court.
ENTER: : Nak a.
; Unit States Diptr ct Fudge
DATED: bil /6,/97L
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUPT
‘POR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
memset
JOHN JORDAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
| BAROLD O. SWANK, et al.,
ee ee ee et ee ee ee ee
Defendants.
MOTION FOR ORDER FOR PPODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING
Plaintiff, by his attorney, moves the Court, pursuant
to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an
order requiring defendants Harold 0. Swank and David Daniel to
produce and rermit plaintiff to inspect and copy each of the.
following documents:
With respect to Harold 0. Swank
1. Any and all letters, cecords, or other data per-
taining to John Joréan, his application for AABD, and the dis-
position of said application;
2. Any and all letters, memoranca, reports, studies,
manual releases, official bulletins, or other transmittals since
February, 1968, with respect to the procedures for processing
of AAZD aoplications and the problems related thereto, the pro-
cedures for making determinations of eligibility or ineligibility
for ARD applicants ané the problems related thereto, the length.
of tire between the date of application and@ the date of eispo-
~_ 80
sition of AABD applicants in all counties of
the State of Illi-
be Ctween :
nois, and with respect to the tire from which initial “3S ch bine-
fits are to be payable to eligible AAD applicants;
3. Any and all correspondence, memoranda, or ‘other
written exchanges of information between any of the county de~ . wae
partments of public aid in the State of Illinois and the Illinois
Department of Public Aid with respect to any of the matters
éescribed in paragraph 2, supra, and with respect to the pect
lem of meeting the maximum time lirits established ky the. De-
partment of Health, Education and Welfare for the processing of
AABD applications; : :
4. Any and all corresponcence, rerorts, or other ex-
changes of information between the Illinois Department of Public
Aid and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare with res-
pect to the state requirements: for promptness in processing AA2D
applications, the actual perforrance of the county departrents
of public aid in the State of Illinois in processing AABD applica-
tions, and the tire from which initial AABD benefits are to be
payable to eligible AABD applicants. This request includes all
exchanges of letters and written information between the ILli-
nois Department of Public Aid and the Department of Health,
Téucation ana “elfare in connection with the petition of the Chi-
cago Welfare Richts Organization calling for a HEW conformity
hearing dealing with the matters described in the foregoing
sentence.
With respect to David Daniel
1. The entire case record of the Cook County Depart-
rent of Public Aid pertaining to John Jordan, his application
for AABD, and the disposition of said application.
2. Any and all letters, memoranda, reports, and stu-
dies since February, 1968, with respect to the procedures for
processing of AABD applications and the problems related thereto,
the procedures for making Geterminations of eligibility or in-
eligibility for AABD applicants and the problers related thereto,
the lencth of tire between the date of application and the Gate
of authorization and/or mailing of the first check for those
AABD applicants determined eligible, and with respect to the time
from which initial AABD benefits are to be payable to elicible
AABD applicants.
3. Any and all correspondence, memoranda, or other
written exchanges of information between the Cook County Depart-
ment of Public Aid, and the Illinois Department of Public Aid with
respect to any of the matters described in Paragraph 2, supra,
and with respect to the problem of meeting the maximum tire li-
mits established by the Department of Health, Education and Wel-
fare for the processing of AASD applications.
Plaintiff did previously, on the 26th Gay of Farch,
1971, pursuant to Rule 34, Federal rules of Civil Procedure,
Serve requests upon Cefendants Swank and Daniel for the above °
discovery and inspection. Defendants Swank and Paniel have
-3-
failed to serve any written response whatsoever upon the plain-
tiff to this time. Defendants paniel and Swank have the possession,
custody, or control of each of the foregoing documents. Each of
them constitutes or contains evidence relevant and material to
a matter involved in this action,
WEEREFORE, pursuant to Rules 34 and 37, Paderal Rules
of Civil Procedure, plaintiff respectfully moves for an order
compelling the defendants Swank and Daniel to proeuce the above
described documents.
Sheldon Roodrman
Community Legal Counsel
116 South Michigan Avenue
Chicaso, Illinois 69603
726-0157
Attorney for Plaintiff
‘- ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRIC, OF ILLIXOIS SS
——EASTERN __DIVISION
Name of Presiding Judge, Honorable Judge Alexander Napoli
No__71 ¢ 70
1) of Cause J a
4 Statement Motion for Order for Production of Documents for
~Inspection and Copying
«
The rules of this court require counsel to furnish the names of all parties entitled to
notice of the entry of an order and the names and addresses of their attorneys. Please
@o this Immediately below (separate lists mey be appended). - :
nes and Sheldon H. Roodman, Community Legal Counsel,
dresses of ‘
counsel , 116 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60603 _
Plaintiffs .
mes and Attorney General, 160 N. LaSalle treet, Chicago, I}linois
ressesof 0” C,
er counsel «6. _ State's Attorney, Civic Center, Poom 500, Chicago, Illinois
fitled to
te and names Representing defendants
parties they .
space below - notations by minute cere
f i.
2 Z
tas te tO ead) te 2. - 40
Nite g ert
AVA ot /?: 20272.29. . b> Lean Sinn >» Pix on Se ;
r vv i’ re nay
oy
| Aap 2nd a
this memorandum to the Clerk.
tl will not rise to address the Court until motion has been called. °
j ons
-__ 84
Oe ee
ps : } Ri
ood
Pat ee 5 Seat 4 ane
*
Vm hors +e eee
. ae oR Mey
er THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ‘2 tne : Ee
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS .
EASTERN DIVISION JUL 27 B7i
: H. STUART CUNNINGHAM
JOHN JORDAN, et al., es ENE
Plaintiffs,
vs. No. 71C 70
HAROLD O. SWANK, et al.,
Defendants.
er et ee ee et ee ee ee ee
MOTION FOR ORDER THAT FACTS
. _ °° BE TAKEN AS ESTABLISHED
The defendant Harold 0. Swank, Director, Illinédis Department
of Public Aid, having failed to comply with this Court's order
of June 23, 1971, that said defendant produce certain records
and documents for plaintiffs' inspection and copying, plaintiffs
now move, pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) and (d), Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, for an order establishing as proven the follow-
ing facts:
1. In February, 1968, Harold 0. Swank, Director, Illinois
Department of Public Aid received from the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, Handbook Transmittal No. 139, attached here-
to as Exhibit A, and knew and understood that the new federal
requirement (Handbook of Public Assistance Administration, Part
IV, Sections 2200(b) (3) and 2300(b) (5)) for a uniform thirty day
maximum for action on AABD applications was mandatory and ay,
on the Illinois Department of Public Aid and, that it would be -
nchagsel “al
effective July 1, 1968.
2. In response to the new federal promptness requirement
to be effective July 1, 1968, Harold 0. Swank issued Manual
Release No. 68.8, effective July 1, 1968, revising Section 4004.1
of the Illinois Categorical Assistance Manual to provide:
"4004.1 Time Standard
Except for DA and MA-NG(D) cases which have a
time standard of 45 days, the time standard for
disposition of applications is 30 days from the
date of application to the date the applicants
are determined eligible and the effective date
of their first assistance or are determined
ineligible and receive a notice of denial of
assistance...."
3. From July 1, 1968 to the present, Harold 0. Swank has
been fully advised and known that substantial numbers of. appli-
eants for AABD in the numerous counties of the State of Illinois
have not had their applications acted upon and disposed of within
the federally prescribed time maximums, and that these delays were
not based on failure or delay on the part of the applicants; and
for substantial numbers of these AABD applicants determined eligible
the effective date of their first assistance was not on or before
30 days from the date of their application, or, for disability
applicants, on or before 45 days from the date of their application.
4. From July 1, 1968 to the present, Harold 0. Swank, Director,
Illinois Department of Public Aid, was fully advised and knew -and
understood that substantial numbers of eligible AABD applicants in.
the numerous counties of the State of Illinois were being denicd
their entitlement to AABD assistance effective 30 days from the date
of their application, or, with respect to disability applicants,
. > :
effective 45 days from the date of their application, by the
operation, implementation, and enforcement of “Sections 8255 and
8255.1-of the Illinois Categorical Assistance Manual which’ pro-
hibited the authorization of AABD assistance for any months prior
to the month in which the application was approved.
5. From July 1, 1968 to the present, Harold 0. Swank, will-
fully and in gross disregard of the rights of eligible AABD appli-
cants, knew that substantial numbers of eligible AABD applicants
were being deprived, contrary to the requirements of federal law,
of their full AABD entitlements effective 30 days from the date
of their application, or, with respect to disability applicants,
45 days from the date of their application, by reason of the opera-
tion, implementation and enforcement of Sections 8255 and 8255.1
of the Illinois Categorical Assistance Manual.
6. From July 1, 1968 to the present, Harold ©. Swank, Director
Tilinois Department of Public “Aid, knew that as result of the
Operation, implementation, and enforcement of Sections 8255 and
8255.1 of the Illinois Categorical Assistance Manual that the amount
of assistance in initial grants and the eligibility conditions for
initial grants for AABD applicants were not made On an equitable and
consistent basis and resulted in inequitable and ‘arbitrary treatment
of eligible AABD applicants in similar circumstances contrary to
the purposes of the Social Security Act.
In addition to the foregoing, the plaintiff herein, pursuant to
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, moves the court
8'7
for such other and further orders as seem just under the circum-
stances, including plaintiffs‘ reasonable expenses, including
' attorneys’ fees, incurred in connection with this motion and the
earlier motion of June 23, 1971. :
This motion is based on the record herein and upon the
affidavit, attached hereto as Exhibit B, of Sheldon Roodman, one
of the attorneys for the plaintiffs.
Respectfully submitted,
G wi Cee
Sheldon Roodman sal tae
One of the attorne
. plaintiffs.
COMMUNITY LEGAL COUNSEL
116 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60603
726-0157
eres er -aC TTT
Ya
tn EDS ris: pis Srey. COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
8S tet & ___ FASTEN __DIVISION
udae Alexendcr Napoli
July 27, 1971
Name of Presiding Judge, Nonorable_2
ase No.-—22-C_70 Date
sile of Cause John Jordan, ct al., vs. Harold 0. Swank, et al. _
Motion For Order That Facts Be Taken As Established
Bri Stateracnt
Motion
The rules of this court require couz:scl to furnish the names ef all parties entiticé to
notice of the entry of an order and the names and addresses of their ettorneys. Pl2zs2
do this immediately below (separate lists may be appended).
Sheldon H. Roodman, Community Legal Counsel, 116 South
Names and
f
arcade Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60603
Representing Plaintiffs
Names and Attorney General of Illinois. 160 N. LaSalle St.. Chicago
Addresses of é
other counsel ‘Att'n: Robert. Maloney
entitled to -
potice and names State's Attorney. Room 500 Civic Center, chicaco, Att*n:
of parties they
James Rooney
represent,
Representing Defendants
)
: “
: Reserve space below for notations by minute clerk
— Phas Yaron tines Lancet rnc ts that
Nand this memorandum to the Clerk. . as
will not rise to address the Court until motion has been called.
—: Li c
ooh
MAY 1971
AAWD AGED MAG
COu.TY OR
UISTKICT CFFICE
NUE OF
APPLICATICNS
DISPLSEI CF
OUKIKS MONTH
LE: ME N
WITHIN
2 DAYS
3-10
OAYS
11-30
OaYS
31-60
OAYS
151-160
OaYS
61-90 91-12 121-150
Oays: OaYs DAYS
6-9
MNTHS
QeRNTHS
OA CVEA
6 200
© 201
© 202
© 203
© 204
*0 205
© 206
© 207
© 208
© 209
@ 212
0 213
@ 24
2 218
0 216
0 217
© 213
© 220
“9 222
a ass
NURS. PUME
WESTERN
MICHIGAN
CAKL AND
NCP TECAN
PARK MANOR
KEN2O000
MAD I SGN
ENGLEWO0
Ga OFFICE
WONCLAMN
R TAYLOR H
(OAK FOREST
GARFIELO
CABRINI HN
WICKER PRK
SOUTHERN
10a 6 WELL
ac weLt, 6
5
7
le
7
2s
13
8
6
36
5
1.
Ot tee
.
—— ee = amt WE
MAY 1971
: AABO ACEO MAG ae
apevicaltens Le WATELIC
OIStaicT OFFICE Qunine mon S'onte Bato bbe3® Biko cave cave’ “daea’*. “payee Lares Sanamns
© 225 STATEKAY C i i ce
© 226 $ SusRuAN ee 2 2 a1 Soy ae : ee
-@ 227 HOSP AP sv : 5 1 2: ; 1 a
© 22@ LOW. KORTH 2 Br. BN OR ea ea Riss .2
© 229m susie oa Ono Bh TE 6 ee eae 1 onsees
“REGION TOTALS... . 635 206 6 229 1 203. 126 oo 6nd ‘ee Ae 1 Yaa) BRO cca ee
COOk Totals ~ 635 een tee ee ms Ae 2 cee 8: . eee Ske
2 015 BUREAU £5 eR iio Fae Ait bigde ih ‘ bcbg ee :
1 037 FULTON i Eee ft “eS wr De MAP ae fe ee Bees
“2 045 benny ee Mm regs ge oe pO Be aa *
1 056 KNOX : 1 oom is eee es BAD Og os seh eae .
1 067 PARSPaLL 1 a eS ee aga ;
1 080 PEcRtA a gw Oa ee “ee oct ;
1089 ROCK tstan Stowe ee sat 8 prelate geen gael ve : i /. Ay
1 095 Stark a ie eee Oa ee a Ue ie ae
3 C98 WAZEreir 2 re oe re ee a at Bs .
, REGION TOTALS -340 7 6 re 4 mst ea :
2 019 CHAMPAIGN | “9 ‘4 4. ;
2 022 CLarx feiss fore 1 Mee, Poe as
tint ct * :° . ; © > e 6
“ coal
MAY 1971
BAUD AGED MAG ~
MUMnEHe OF
APPLICATICNS LENGTH TIT APPLICATION wAS PESDIN¢
crusty oR DUT ha cet ITHIN = B30 1-90-60 Stew «40120 3830180 151-180 6-9 9-KHT HS
UISTAICT OFFICE OUKIAG mull 2 0AYS DAYS DAYS, dave Days DAYS DAY'S DAYS MNTHS —s GR CVE
2 031 €0cAK + 8 - 2 -_
2 033 EFFINGHAM - a % 4 1 i i ;
2 046 IPccLOIS 2 > 1 ° 1 5 Pe ; : :
| 2 054 Kanxanee 26 2. 2 a3. 64 3 2 5. $
, 2 63 Macon oo 6 . 2 3 ‘ . ;
2 072 *CLEAN ae i. « . ;
B- 2 096 srerey 2 . .. le 3 Do ; we ietes
REGICN TOTALS 509 wo. 8 eee See 4 ‘s. s
- 3010 scans. a, MO 8k we’ 8g 3 . hoe esha , [=
3 014 eROnx 3 om : «YL ten apade a ea % .
-DOlE CASS * 3 re Sa ‘ a ew eo i oe Sek ae
3020 CrRISTIANS ‘4 : 4 eas ‘ea i tae | = @
3035 cheEne 3 s ° .8 . Ce , te
3 042 FAtiCocK , 2 ., ° 2 e acd ‘ ; 4 : , ; . £&£
3050 yiasey == «sg 1. 1 s. ee ; yg
3 062 Locan — 1 v's. ;
3 C64 mMaCCUPIN , 1
3 076 MONTCOMERY 1
3 077 KCRGAN 4
3ceseke > . 2
wee it gee
AALD ACEO MAG
NU43E? CF
-
LENGTH OF TIMZ APPLICATION WAS PENDING
APPLICATIONS
wl THIt
2 OAYS
O1sP9sCo CF
DUAING VONTH
CcuNTY Of
OISTRICT OFFICE
4
3 CSL SANCAMUN iT) 2
REGICN TOTALS ty
4 O12 CUNO .
025 CRAWFORO
045
05$
4 065
4 066
4 068
096
FAYETTE
JEFFERSON
LAKRENCE
MAOISCN
KAR IGN
RICFKLANO
ST CLAIR
4 104 WAYKE 7 4
REGICN TOTALS’
, )
S O11 AL FXANOER
S$ 036 FAANKLIN ; ;
5S 041 FAMILTON
$ 947 JACKSCN °
$069 MASSAC OC, - «
Me BORE bee
s‘oos NIT
3-10 11-30 31-60» 61-90 = G1H120--AZl-150 =: 152-180 6-9" | 9=¥NTKS
DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS OAYS MTHS . ~ OA CVER
3 11 2
29 7
. 1 . : ‘ . .
an 3 , ; ° °
1 . -_
. 2 3 ‘kt
1 a oa , <a ‘
7 : 1 . .
‘2 2. ow . Gieeune «9 ~ :
, 4 Baw ve pas teres a4 ‘ : .
tO de xe ds abe ue woe 7 . ;
1 5 ,
6... 2 5S oo, ; ;
;* i ,
2 20 . 4 .
vo i: tae ue '
1 re ' .
a ees ae tae ae, ‘ *’
+ of 8 . a
a) ? *s es O ot .e .
7S
AAUO sGEO MAG
NUMSER CF
LENGTH OF TIMZ APPLICATION WAS PENDING
APPLICATICNS
CcunTY OR OLsPosed CF
OISTRICT CFFICE
WITHIN
OURIANG MONTH 2 OAYS
31-60
O4YS
3-10
OAYS
11-30
DAYS
61-90
OaYs
121-150
OAYS
91-120
DAYS OAYS
151-130
GoM).
Oa ove
. S$ 108 KILLTAMSON 2 re | .
° REGION TOTALS =. 28 ee ee cre rc ie easy
* © O13 e00NE : % s er ree? Sere 8 “as wee xe .
* @ O17 CARROLL ey * & Bo Be ra es
OORT ONG ee EE Tt eee
", © 030 CUPACE 1 nes BR. RIT LE tre ete he Acacias hs © 0A Veen
c. 6 088 50 OAVEESS cB TSR STL Te ee co os fee eo
"6 053 KANE | ee 1s ae sea cbee « oOo wee Benes Bey 1, Bl ee
2) 6 OSS KENOAL eR cas Bis meas 1 Meee qaacn, dm of ‘ba a3
cs 6 OST LAKE On as boo $c. eek + tke eee 6 , .
". @05eta SLE DS US ee Soe eee ee awe .
=. 6 060 LEE ngs . tM oe ems a © ho ose he ore _
6 O71 MCHENRY : 1 *, er oes a .
:". 6 079 OCLE ris a5 ' a ee is Oo tae oe Oe ; : ;
iL 6 097 STEPHENSON =... + ee ok a Coane
" @ 106 WHITESIOE “ 1 a | TS ,
- @ 107 WILL ; rr 3 2) a :
» ” 6 109 WINNEBAGO , 18 ar er 10 1 a
Camere REGIE TATALS.: 2... 93 we , =. 16 r rr O = oO
105 WHITE
a a
JOB 61 6C6C-C41 ILLINOIS OLPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AIO
FORMAT 2. MONTHLY REPURT GF OLSPOSEO APPLICATIONS
AT &NO OF MONTH OY CATE OF APPLICATION
.
, MAY 1971
AABO AGED MAG
NUMER CF
APPLICATIONS : LENGTH OF TIME APPLICATION WAS PENDING
CGUATY OR OLSPCSED CF WITHIN 11-30 31-60 61-S0 91-120 121-150 151-1580 6-9 QaKANTHS
DISTRICT GFFICE OURING HONTH 2 DAYS DAYS OAYS OAYS OAYS DAYS OAYS ANTHS OR CVER
COWNSTATE TOTALS 323,—Ci 57 8 4 10 6
" $TATE TOTALS 958 be a to 29
MAY 1971
AALO BLIND MAG
NUMCER WF
APPLICATICNS
} CCUNTY O28 OISPCSEU fF WITHIN 3-10 11-30
CISTRICT OFFICE OURING AUNTH 2 OAYS OAYS DAYS
} ~
201 RESTERN a . 1
roy
203 OAKLAND) -—-.
204 NORTHERN =
206 KENWOOD a
207 MADISCN
203 ENGLERDOD
215 GARFIELO
217 WICKER PRK
.
218 SOUTFERN
So oe oe
w
rs
.
221 KEN RCRNER ee | 7 * © py oe oe a ectaude @ ws a
222. ROCKHELL G a | . a ar ee ee ee a
226 LOW. NORTH “ 1 feu @ ae om = ;
REGION TOTALS 18 $
~-
o. CUOK TOTALS 8
1 080 PEORIA . §
- ~- 4
. RECION TOTALS
2 054 KANKAKEE
2 100 VCAMILION ;
Smeg Sep RECI.. TOTALS,
"Tem. oe e.
5
i
2072 HCLEAN 1 oo. «
: .
4
MAY 1971
AAGO OISALLEO MAG a
. , Pg ee LENGTH OF TIME APPLICATION WAS PRIMING
, COUNTY OR OISPUsed CF WITHIN 3-10 11-30 31-60 61-90 S1-120.—«A2I-150 1510180 6-9 9-PATHS
PF __tstaicr cFFice DURING MONTH 2 DAYS DAYS OAS” paver Oe? CAYS ba DAYS KUTHS «GR OVER
‘f ¢ 200 KLas. MoME 175 9 6 35 73 41 4 4 Sn eee
‘I 201 western ~~ 4372 e.g _ 87 19 a S . 4. 4 rBevwtes Gan ee
» © 202 MICKIGAN aq. 64 7° 35 i" . a 7h © vesercs Leevassinver De,
© 203 CaKLano ae 5. 4h 38 18 6 :? re metas ABs
Y- & 206 NOPTHERN g12 180127. 61 ns a | = 3 sees Gyan tants “
0 205 PARK HANOR . 19 Me 8". 29 ak 3 : aw Bn EF Renae hare
T. © 206 xenxcco tr "16 Sk. gs 2006 MBS DW sides Weersemnss hme
}. 0 207 mactson | aaa 134.7 | 35 | 22° sas 9° Qe a a se ce ceccememedier
Jo 0208 exctewcon ott 4 47 8 28 Sr mesos Bea vetmened
# - © 205 Ga crFice - $8 » 7 8 Ma i re oe Ses deals yea
B. 0 212 sovctann 26 a 8 2. 4, 6. * \¢ “ee oes ase 22°
O 213 R TAYLOR” 6 » “3 er a 7. | ° “1a &§
© 214 Cax FOREST & 2 :2 1 , , 2 _".* 4 .,
“oscars * on 0 1s 17 7. 6 » | a
© 216 CABRINE KM 7 ' 1 z2 .3 RB 7 : ,
© 217 WICKER PRK. 215 $2085 Sg Toa a ee ee
© 21 soutrean | 448 ato “gg $3 7 Bo a, nen sa, aos of
0 220 JCA 8 WELL a - 4 3: + ey we yg
-@ 221 HEN HORNER 5 2 l 2 ‘ 7% Fs et :
. ‘e . os P
° on“ . e ef . . ste j . ’ * . e
9,242 Koc, tte, 4. WwW 1. a 2. CC . .
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AID
FORMAT 2. HONTHLY REPORT GF DISPOSED APPLICATIONS
AT ENO OF MONTH OY CATE OF APPLICATION
.
MAY 1971.
AAUD BLIND MAG
NUMBER OF
APPLICATIONS LENGTH OF TIM APPLICATION WAS PEIDINC
* COUNTY OR OISPOSEO CF WA THIN 3-10 11-30 31-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-160
DISTRICT OFFICE DUAIKG MONTH 2 DAYS DAYS OaYs DAYS . OAYS DAYS OaYS DAYS
3 O91 SAtGAMON 1 a .
REGION TOTALS
4” @ 066 Manton
» REGION TOTALS
t+ $ 052 JOHNSON
REGION TOTALS.
6 030_cUPACcE
+ © O53 KANE
+ © 106 WKITESIOE
I. & 109 WINNEBAGO
”
a ee |
L. REGION TOTALS
GOWN STATE TOTALS
STATE TOTALS
p oe 4 LJ & ® oe Po | aoe me & t.3 €. é.
A400 OISABLEO MAG
- omen one ™
phen onattens LENGTH OF TIM APPLICATION WAS PoxDINC
' County ca O1sPeaséen cr WITHIN 3-10 11-30 31-69 61-90 9i-120 121-150 151-160 6-9 Gerisin
CISTAICT CFFICE OURIAS MUNTH .2 DAYS OaYs OAYS OAYS Oars DAYS Oays OAYS MANTHS . OR CVEA
0 22) gave ADDAM 10 ry : 5 2 1: 1
C224 nicKesS HH 0g 1 3 a 1:
J © 225 statenay c 7 1 2° 3 1. a 7 °
fo 226 5 sucinaan reo © 7 : 31 32° 2 | 3 ‘. S wt be ebtcowe
Pozzrwse we sv 5s oF 18 Ww 6 3. « Baum o @t
9 © 228 Low. noatn 153 a er re ae at tf owe, Os aed
Bo 225 & suewoan Or | 8 24 Pn oe ee” “4 _ ose ana
REGION TOTALS | ates 617 617 690 443 146 50 38 a7 47... ..58
COOK TOTALS : 7 2700 NTA 80 ti(asi Raa CQ YT rt 2 ; ee | |
1 OLS pUaCaY “s+ ay 3 ge ; ;
1 037 FULTON 5 3 1 ; $f... : .
1 044 FENDEASON 2 2. ‘ . : °
1 045 Fenny 3 : 2 1
1 056 Knox ‘3 . one ‘ re Pe 4% ° ° 1. ‘
+1 067 MER SFALL 2 1 . 1 oe
"3 070 mcconouUcH | = s 2 a re Pa , - “>
1074 MERCER aa Ss aa a
3030 PEORIA Cy a ? t Y 6 1 b jase ee
1089 ROCK IsLaN 2G ‘2 1 5 12 i.% 8
4 ope tac au ify i ‘ 7 a | ’ C3 we dl ‘ . te a €) ‘90 ye ; . .
f
‘ ; '
eke * & - bal ares ot mr, ,
a AABO DISABLED MAG ;
APPLICATIONS poet
CCUMTY O% DISPOSED CF WITHIN §«=©=693"10 = 11=30 31-60 1-90 91-120 121-150 151-160 6-9 9m HS
OISTAICT CFFICE OURSAG MONTH 2 DAYS DAYS DAYS Days Days DAYS DAYS DAYS KNTHS OR GVEA
- 2 162 WARREN . i . a ! _
1110 KCaCcrCRD N ‘ * § — °
REGION TOTALS 93 15 as 11 31.0.0 “9. 2 ° 2 2
. 2 019 CHAMPATON 30 5. S. 48 — <=+8.;, -4 1 . .
t. 2 O24 CLARK ‘ . - es ; i, . “$: ;
. .2 024 COLES . 4 by 2 ese SG 2s 7 ert
+ 2 026 CE Witt 2 : ees woe .
2 031 EcGeR . S$ 2. sere 3 ' , . i. +
+ 2033 EFFINGHAM |... 6 Ae te deen He som Eee i a
‘1s 2 03S FOKO' tg * tg " «@ * cwaee «a » wnstaw on : 22K
“2046 1a0cuors © © 62 6s Bee a . 2 fo. eed eee, —
t+ 2 O54 KANKAKEE 67 ee By ae Wee Es Meee Mik. Oc es Owe. «OS resend
“2 O62 LIVINGSTON 7 ye +s My cee Seta =. es Sf hs yes aa 43
” 2 063 Macon 2 ‘20 Be Ba ns os By x ce s. Se mess, i. iy Ste one ves
+2072 MCLEAN a | ares on a bi a* a's = Loewe »
207enoutTaIe 80, fa oes : oe es. Beh aepee ones ee sane «
Vl gone suey, a Tg git tomy ; ve , - « %
I... 2 100 weRmmtON =——(iti‘ «si aa & : : Sen .t 2. Fs |
Pe REGION TOTALS — 173 e186 36 29 rr wos. 63
aaa IG HOD cig Me OO te Oe aD et te
971
ALWD DISABLED MAG
CCUNTY OR
OLSTAICT OFFICE
NUDES OF
APPLICATICNS
OSPGSED CF
OUAING MORTH
: LENGTH OF TIME APPLICATION WAS PEIDING
WITHIN
2 DAYS
3-10
OAYS
11-30
DAYS
61-90
DAYS
31-60
DAYS
91-120
OAYS
121-150
OAYS
151-180
OAYS
9-KNTHS
OR CVER
3 cle Cass
3 020 CHRISTIAN _
3 63¢ GREENE
* 3 042"
-. 3 050
HANCGCK
JERSEY
3 062 LOGAN
* 3 064 MACOUPIN
3 Cee
3 073 MENARD
4AaSON
=
- 3 076 MONTGOMERY
... 3 077
wORGAN
3 083
3 091
= 092
PIKE
SANGAMON
SCHUYLER
* . 4 012 eONS
* " @ 022 cLay
4 023 CLINTON
+.” & 025 Caanroao
032. £Ow/ “75.
reg 2.2
RECION TOTALS’.
. 1
en oe ee
oN NN OYUN le
MAY OTL
AAUO DISAULED MAG
CCUMTY OR
CISTRICT GFFICE
NUMER CF
LENGTH OF TI!d: APPLICATIO! WAS PENNING
APPLICATICNS
OISsPusED CF WITHIN 3-10 11-30
OURING MONTH 2 OAYS DAYS OAYS
31-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-180
OAYS DAYS OAYS OAYS DAYS
6-9 9-HNTHS
KNTHS GR OVER
4
4
6
4
4
:
&
4
4
4
4
“ s
.
‘ .
.069 MAS**C
034 FAYETTE
O48 JASPER
C45 JEFFERSON
C5 LAWRENCE
06S RADISCN
066 MARION
075 KONROE
088 RICHLAND
096 ST CLAIR
101 WACASH
104 WAYNE
REGION TOTALS
G11 ALEXANOER
036 FRANKLIN:
O38 GALLATIN
041 PAMILION. :
043 FARO IN:
047 JACK SUN
Pd
oor anew
2
1
4
3.. a's? camwens 1.
Oe eh Ctr C8 Oe. me
.
MAY 1971
AABD DISABLED MAG
. CGuNTY OR
. CISTRICT CFF ICE
KNUMUER OF
APPLICATIONS
LENGTH
OF TINE APPLICATION WAS PENDIN
OISPOSED CF WITHIN
3-10
OURIAG MONTH 2 DAYS
DAYS
11-30
DAYS
31-60
OaYS
“61-90
OAaYsS -
91-120 121-130 151-1806
6-9
DAYS DAYS OaYs -
UNTHS
9-KNT
OR CVE
- $ 085 PULASKI
$5 067 RANCCLPH ~~~
5 C9C SALINE,
5 099 WIO0N .
3 105 WHITE
S 108 WILLIAMSON
REGION TOTALS...
+ € O13 B90NE
6 027 O&KkaLB
+ 6 030 CuPAcE 7
6 040 GauNoY
6 051 JO Caviess
- 6 053 KANE _—
6 OSS KENDALL
- © O57 Lake
@ 058 La sae
6 COC LEE so
* @ O72 MCKENRY
vx*, D719, Cove)
Os tee
6 O17 CARRCLE -
4 i
2 1
10
2° _ Maan . ae Ee waee wea a. | 4 os, eee bee
2 ” ° 7 -, $ - : : . : 2 voy e- . . : - 7 . | .
‘57 eT Ma gg iu en? oo 2 ‘y ; ewes
1. wo ; nee ne as ee a ar a ss
43 i re Se er OTTO. te. a Bc ac We cecum Be
. ain ai eee cee : bel.
ar _ ar ae ‘: 2 . <a
a3 . : ‘2 - "y cutee -" 2 . 2 Le, i 1 : . a
ar Sar ". #. © 3 a "O ine *
i ae
- .
° e
oa oa . ©, em cetes eg : .”
oor Bee we ee: e * *-
“ . eee y e-
. me ee ores ste e-* . .
se a 2 Sy .
foe 1 om Oe see ow . - oe . -
se oe + + te
oes Wiebe onel es.
ILLINOIS OEPARTMENT OF PUDLIC AIO
FORMAT 2. MONTHLY REPORT OF DISPOSED APPLICATIONS
AT ENO OF MONTH! GY DATE OF APPLICATION
MAY 1971
AAGO DISABLED MAG
COUNTY OR
OISTRICT OFFICE
KURBER CF .
APPLICATICNS : . LENGTH OF TIME APPLICATION W.
OIsPuscO CF WITHIN .3-10 11-39 31-69 61-90 91-120 421-150 151-180 Q-KNTHS
OURING MONTH 2 OAYS DAYS ; OaYS OAYS OAYS .° DAYS » DAYS OAYS OR OVER
. © C97 STEPRENSCN
a
6 106 WKKITESIOE
.. © 107 WILE
6 109 WINEDAGO
REGION TOTALS
DOWNSTATE TOTALS
STATE TOTALS
ws. 2
14 ,
3
3...
8
)
4
1
4
4
INDER-OUrypitae ausnuwyrw se.
». dune 23, 1971
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TUBUC AID
poBLIC ASSISTANCE DIVISION
Judson T. Murray, Assistart Chief
(harles McTowell, Supervisor
and District Office . _____ Bureau of Resources and legal Service
mx, John 03-203-125907 Civil Action File No. 71 C 70 U. S. District Court
will confirm our telephone conversetion of June 23, 1971, pertaining to
peective assistance for John Jordan, Disability Assistance vandgeont and
intiff. in the Federal Court case.
woing request of the Office of the State's Attorney of Cock County,
O'Malley telephoned Mr. Gershon Hurwitz, Assistant Director, IDPA, and
sined approval to issue retroactive assi stance to Mr. Jordan in nor to .
id possible conterpt citation on the Director, CCDPA.
rwere requested to issue retroactive assistance for the tio months i
tistely preceeding January 1, 1971, the effective date of assistance for
, dord2an. Besed on the regular February 1$71 crant the amount to be issved
é total $195.66. It was agreed that your office would a the recipient
this ection.
deers that by use of the Mercury ny Hr. Jordan ad receive the
active greek about ae June 30, — . :
AsV ' ‘ ~ * 2 a.
: Mrs. 0 ‘Malley .
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
/ EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN JORDAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs. No. 71 C 70
HAROLD O. SWANK, etc., et al.,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
TO MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, PERMANENT INJUNCTION,
AND OTHER RELIEF
I. PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED
TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS A- MATTER
< . OF LAW ON COUNT I.
A. Plaintiffs are Not Entitled to a Permanent Injunction
As is stated in Plaintiffs' brief, a preliminary injunction
has previously been issued in this cause and the Defendants are
making every effort to comply with said injunction. The entry of a
permanent injunction would merely make this preliminary order a
final order and the Defendants are not intentionally trying to
disregard this Court's orders.
B. Plaintiffs are Not Entitled to all AABD Assistance Retroactive
to July 1, 1968.
The principal case relied on by Plaintiffs here is
RODRIGUEZ V. SWANK, 403 U.S. 901 (1971), affirming 318 F. Supp. 289
(N.D. I1l1. 1970). In that case retroactive payments were ordered,
but only back to the date of the filing of that lawsuit rather than
back to July 1, 1968. The federal regulation which was found to be
violated in that case took effect on July 1, 1968 as did the federal
regulation involved in this cause. It should be noted that the
106
|
United State Supreme Court in Rodriguez felt that the granting of
retroactive benefits to the date of the filing of the lawsuit was
asufficient deterent to the Defendants and that compelling such
retroactive payments back to July l, 1968 was unnecessary.
Likewise in the case at hand, any order of retroactivity
of payments should not compel the payment of such benefits back
any farther than the date this lawsuit was filed.
The Defendants do state that retroactivity of benefits
in this case is totally unnecessary without a showing on the part
of the Plaintiffs that they have actually suffered a loss as a
result of not obtaining benefits on or before the thirtieth or
sixtieth day.
C. This Court Should Not Impose Any Punitive Damages Against
Swank.
Harold O.
All of the cases relied upon by the Plaintiffs are clearl
@istinguishable from the case at hand, and they will be considered
in the order in which Plaintiffs cited them.
First, the case of Adickes v. S. H. Kress and Company,
90 S. Ct. 1598, 398 U.S. 144 (1970) involved an action by a white
woman who had been denied service in the defendant's restaurant
because she was in the company of Negroes. A New York City
policeman was involved in the action because he had arrested the
plaintiff while she was attempting to obtain a meal in defendant's
This case was remanded for a new trial to aliow the
restaurant.
However, in that case the plaintiff
plaintiff to prove her case.
had to show direct action on the part of the State and in the case
tic tc 3 Pate
at bar there is no direct action on the part of Mr. Swank.
Second, is the case of Caperci v. Hantoon, 397 F.2d 799
This case also involved actions of police
(lst Cir., 1968).
officers, where they conducted an illegal search of plaintiff's
Here too,
home without either probable cause or a search warrant.
direct action of these police officers is involved in depriving
plaintiff of his rights; while in the case at hand, Defendant Swank
:
aid no positive acts.
Third, in Lee v. Southern Home Sites Corporation, 429 F.2d
290 (Sth Cir., 1970) the court denied punitive damages to the
plaintiff who was not allowed to purchase a home solely because
of his race. That’ case involves no state official and is clearly
inapplicable to the case at hand.
; Fourth, is the case of Mansell v. Saunders, 372 F.2d
573 (Sth Cir., 1967). The Court held that the complaint*of the
owner of a garbage business stated a cause of action against
county commissioners for violation of his due process and equal
This case also involved positive action on the
protection rights.
part of the defendants and no such positive action was taken by
Mr. Swank in the cause now before this court.
Next, in Anderson v. Nosser, 438 F.2d 183 (5th Cir., 1971)
the court held that damages were proper for the false imprisonment
of demonstrators. However, the State of Mississippi has no law
granting officials immunity for false imprisonment and in that case
the plaintiffs were also subjected to very degrading, cruel, and
‘unusual punishment while being wrongfully imprisoned. In the case
at bar, no such positive action was taken ané surely it cannot be
said that Mr. Swank subjected these plaintiffs to degrading, cruel
|
|
j
oer unusual pulishment.
Fifth, in Basista v. Weir, 340 F.2d 74 (3rd Cir., 1965),
the plaintiff was subjected to wrongful arrest, physical beating,
and humiliation before his neighbors, and this took positive action
on the part of the police officer. Defendant Swank has done no
positive acts and also has done nothing so patently wrongful as
was the case in Basista.
In addition, the Court in Rhoads v. Horvat, 270 F. Supp.
307 (D.C. Col., 1967) held that $5,000.00 in compensatory and
$2,500.00 in exemplary damages was a liberal award for the illegal
arrest and detention of the plaintiff. Again, this involves positiv
action on the part of the defendants and in the case now before this
court there was no positive action taken by Mr. Swank.
‘Also, in Washington v. Official Court Stenogravher,
251 F.Supp. 945 (D.C. Pa., 1966) a court stenographer was ordered
to pay damages for failure to provide a transcript to a prisoner
This case shows a situation
after he had been ordered to do so.
involving failure to act, but it is clearly distinguishable from
“the case at bar since the stenographer was disobeying an order of
court. Here Defendant Swank merely enforced a state law and was
not violating any court order.
Finally, the case of Brooks v. Moss, 242 F. Supp. 531
(W.D.S.C., 1965) involved punitive damages being assessed in a case
This was
involving a wrongful arrest and an assault and battery.
positive wrongful action; and in the case of Defendant Swank, no
‘positive wrongful action was taken.
None of these cases cited by the Plaintiffs create any
precedent for assessiny punitive damages against Harold 0. Swank,
*__ 109
All of these cases concern affirmative action or inaction rather
than a lack of diligence of a person in a top executive position.
yone of those defendants had jobs of a such a high position as
ur. Swank and they all involved close personal action between the
plaintiffs and the defendants.
Therefore, this is not a proper case for the assessment
of punitive damages, and to do so would be neither reasonable nor
justifiable.
II. PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT IT .
A. Nothing in the Illinois Public Aid Code Requires That AABD
Assistance Be Granted From the Date of Application.
Plaintiffs cite no State or Federal law or regulation
which requires that assistance be granted from the date of appli-
- cation. Instead they simply state that since no provisions in
the law authorize the present position of the Department it must
be the wrong position.
This is a novel position, and totally incorrect, because
the reasoning is that the only things that can be done are those
which are specifically spelled out. Yet, the Plaintiffs state that
the Defendants must grant assistance from the date of application ever
though no specific provision requires it.
‘ Plaintiffs cite People ex. rel. Naughton v. Illinois Devart
ment of Public Aid, No. 70 L 11380 (Circuit Court of Cook County, -
1971) as precedent for their position here. As is clear from
Plaintiffs' Brief, this was a trial court decision and is therefore
without any precedent value whatsoever. |
Then it is stated by Plaintiffs that since this case
yas never appealed, it should be taken as state court precedent.
this too is clearly a position without basis or justification.
Plaintiffs next cite five cases they feel control this
case. These cases are all' distinguishable, and will be treated
separately.
First, Ewing v. Gardner, 185 F.2d 781 (6th Cir. 1950)
involved Social Security benefits, not public assistance, and
therefore has no value in this cause.
Second, Anderson’ v. United States, 205°F.2d326 (9th
Cir. 1953) involved annuities, and therefore clearly has no appli-
cation to public assistance grants.
Next, Conant v. State, 197 Wash. 21, 84 P.2d 378 (1938)
involved old age assistance, but closer inspection of that case
reveals that the Washington state statute specifically provided
that assistance be granted from the date of application. .
In addition, the case of Finley v. Marion County, 81 Ore.
294, 159 P. 557 (1916) involved pension benefits rather than
public assistance.
Finally, In_Re Wolfe, 81 Ore, 297, 159 P. 558 (1916)
also did not involve public assistance.
Therefore, none of these cases have any application to the
case at hand, and the Plaintiffs arguments are without basis.
B. Defendants' Actions Do Not Violate the Federal Requirements
For Equitable and Objective Treatment of AABD Applicants.
While it is true that some applications are processed
ft ae :
more quickly than others, many factors can cause this result. One
that some caseworkers are busier than, others, but others
that some applications take longer to précess than others
use of the factors that must be determined to exist in order
to determine eligibility.
¢. There Is No Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In order to prove a violation of the equal protection
clause, it must be shown that an unreasonable and arbitrary
classification exists which was caused by the affirmative action
of the defendants.
a
Here there have been no classifications of any kind set
Rather a situation has arisen,
up by actions of the Defendants.
completely outside the effective control of the Defendants,
and this is not sufficient to prove violation of the equal
protection clause.
In addition, the relief Plaintiffs have received by
the preliminary injunction already issued by this court is
sufficient to alleviate the problems complained of here.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, Defendants respectfully submit that
the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, permanent injunction,
and other relief should be denied.
EDWARD PISHER
sistant Attorney General
(of Counsel)
3-3656
a ——
.
‘\
beet b. le eg
WILLIAM J. SCOTT
Attorney General
State of Illinois
Attorney for Defendants,
Illinois Dept. of Public Aid,
Harold 0. Swank, and
Edward T. Weaver, Successor Director
160 North La Salle Street
-Chicago, Illinois 60601
ee ee oe
ee
ee
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
ss
COUNTY OF CO OK )
THE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn on oath,
deposes and says that a copy of the foregoing
DEFENDANTS‘ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF PLAINTIFS FOR
SUMMARY ee PERMANENT INJUNCTION, AND OTHER RELIEF
by delivering
was served upon the following hyxderpeciting such copy im
xhhextinikedxShakeaxnakdocchutmeuntl Sixieculeanbienthneeka
7 XGRIRAGRAXEARERAER AX GRANT AXARARAK ROK NPACPROAORNG RASS SEEM
HROKKAGRXRRAXAAARKAARAxRAxEOIIOKNRX on December 1, 1971
-
Sheldon H. Roodman Edward V. Hanrahan
Community Legal Counsel State's Attorney of Cook County
116 South Michigan Avenue 500 Civic Center
Chicago, Illinois 60603 Chicago, Illinois
ai — James Rooney. ~ Ss
TA Lei. . Fd ae soot
SUBSCRIBED AND s#o5x—T0
aa a 8 ne this “~~ ' da
of CECSILELE - —,, 49 © A.D.
IN THE UNITED sTATss DISTRICT COURT
POR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OY ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
: zw Le
JOHN JORDAN, et al., i 3
Plaintif?#s, )
)
va. ) Ho. 71 ¢ 70
)
FAROLD 0, SWANK, etc., et 21., ) 7
)
Defendents,. )
NOTICE AND PROCF OF SERVICE
TO: =Sheldon B, Roodman William J. Scott
Commnity Legal Counsel Attorney General of Illinois
116 South Michigan Avenue 160 North LaSalle Street .
Chicago, Illinois 60603 Chicago, Illinois 6060}
ATTN.: C. Edward Pisher
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the defendants, DAVID L.
DANIEL and the COCK couNTy DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AID do not
intend to file a Seperate brief in opposition to Plaintiff's
motion for cummry judgment and other permanent relief. They
adopt Jn toto the brie# filed December 1, 1971, by the Attorney
Ceneral of Iblinois as their brie?,
EDWARD V. HANRAHAN
State's Attorney of Cook County
Bys
Janes A, Rooney
Assistant State's Attorney
~ 445
JAMES A, ROONEY, hereby certifies thet he Served
copies of this notice and proof of service by mailing said
copies on December 6, 1971 to the parties to whom it is
directed,
James A, Rooney
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN JORDAN, by his next friend,
JEANETTE BRYANT, individually and
Plaintiffs,
vs.
HAROLD O. SWANK, Director, Illinois
Department of Public Aid; DAVID DANIEL, ©
Director, Cook County Department of
Public Aid; EDWARD J. BARRETT, Comp-
troller of Cook County, individually
and in their official capacities,
. Defendants. -
ee ee ee ee a es ee es es es es
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
UE AND ORDER
This civil rights action challenges the administration of
federally funded Aid to the Aged, Blind and Disabled program (AABD)
by the defendants. Currently, the plaintiff has moved for summary
judgment seeking a permanent injunction, declaratory judgment, and
punitive damages. Plzintiff argues and the court agrees that there
exists no genuine issue of material fact.
Section 1382(a)(8) of Title 42 provides that assistance
under the AABD plan shall be made to eligible applicants with reason
able promptneés. Federal regulations stipulate that reasonable
Promptness shalinot exceed 30 days for aid to the aged and blind
and 60 days for the disabled. These €ime limitations are mandatory.
jriquez v. Swank, 318 F. Supp. 289 (N.D. Ill. 1970) (Kiley, Will
i pecker, JJ). The defendants, as administrators of the Illinois
ogram, have not complied with these limits, either for determining
igibility or in furnishing the first assistance check. Federal
<= oe of public Assistance AMminiatration, Part IV,. $£2200(b) (3) (4)
d 2300(b) (3) (5)- For the reasons stated by plaintiff in his memoran-
m, the court agrees that the plaintiff class is entitled as a matter
f law to a permanent injunction to insure seukiaieatis present and
ture, with the requisite time limitations. |
Based on the same authority a final judgment will be entered
sclaring the Illinois Categorical Assistance Manual sections 4004
4 8255 (and subsecticns thereunder) as applied to applicants for
BD to be invalid insofar as they are inconsistent with the Social
curity Act and regulations issued cursuant thereto.
Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages against defendant Swank
ho was the Director-of the Illinois program. The court is not in-
ed to grant such damages, believing the permanent injunction to
a sufficient deterrent to future violations.
-Pinally, a final judgment and permanent injunction is sought
requiring defendants to pay to those applicants for: AABD since July
1, 1968, who met the eligibility requirements for AABD at the time
os
of their applications, AABD benefits from the date of their application.
pased on the Rodriquez case and other authority cited by plaintiff,
the class is entitled to such payments at least from the last day
of the requisite time limitations contained within the federal regulatior
fhe class consists of those applicants who applied for AABD since the
effective date of the regulations, July 1, 1968, and did not receive
their initial check as required within the 30 day or 45 day (60 ‘days
‘ for aid to the disabled as of January 1, 1971) limits. Lewis v.
Riggins, F. Supp. (Cause No. 71 H 19, N. D. Ind.
May 19, 1971).
Plaintiff, however, seeks the retroactive payments from
the date of application rather than the last day of the time limitati«
The court cannot agree with this position. The federal statute and
regulations grant a reasonable time to. the administrators to act
upon the application and require payments to begin only within that
period but not from the beginning of such period. This court perceiv
ho requirement that the assistance shall be paid "retroactively to the
date of application. Nor is the right to the equal protection of the:
law violated by such an order. The processing of some applications
faster than others within the time limits does not establish arbitra)
_.€lassifications constituting invidious discrimination. No classifi-
" eations will be processed before others. As long as all are complet
ale
and assistance checks are furnished within the time limits, a
definite and objective standard exists for the processing of the
applications. Therefore, the plaintiff class is entitled to retro-
active benefits from the last day of the federally required time
limits.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is
granted in part and denied in part. Counsel for plaintiff is ordered
to present to the court within 20 days a proposed judgment order
and decree in accordance with this opinion.
ENTER:
ee tae
UNITED STATESZHISTRICY JUDGE
DATED: February
SE a a
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN JORDAN, et al., )
‘Plaintiffs, )
vs. : } No. 71 C 76
EDWARD T. WEAVER, ieee .
Defendants. }
NOTICE OF FILING
fo: William J. Scott Edward V. Hanrahan
Attorney General State's Attorney
160 N. LaSalle St. 500 Civic Center
Chicago, 111.60601 Chicago, I11.60602
Attn: Richard Byrne Attn: James Rooney
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 13, 1972, we have filed
with the Honorable Alexander J. Napoli, Judge of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
the attached Judgment in substitution for the Judgment pre-
viously submitted to the Court with plaintiffs‘ motion for
= of judgment. Lett, | (Seo Cae
Sheidon H. i
Attorney res plajhtifts
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Sheldon H. Roodman, certify that I am the attorney for
plaintiffs in the above-captioned case and that on March 13, 1972
I served copies of the attached revised Judgment on the attorneys
for the defendants at the above-listed addresses by depositing
same in the United States mailbox at 116 S. Michigan Avenue,
Chicago, Illinois, postage prepaid, First Class mail, on March
13, 1972 ~ 424 L,
e . ‘ain i i
ét, ZO cht.
i ee
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
POR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION ~ 3
JOHN JORDAN, by hi's next friend, )
JEANETTE BRYANT, individually )
and on behalf of al) other )
persons similarly situated, )
; )
Plaintiffs, )
. . ) ‘ .
Vs. ) No. 71 C 70
ye
EDWARD T. WEAVER, Director, )
Illinois Department of Public )
Aid; HAROLD o. SWANK, former )
Director, Illinois Department )
of Public Aid; DAVID L. DANIEL, )
Director, Cook County Depart- )
ment Of Public Aié; EDWARD J. )
BARRETT, Comptroller of Cook” )
County, individually and in )
their official capacities, )
)
)
Defendants.
JUDGMEN?T
This action came on for hearing before the Court,
Bonorable Alexander J. Napoli, United States District
Court, and the issues having been duly heard and a Memo-
Tandem Opinion and Order having been duly rendered on
February 4, 1972,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
1. The defendants DAVID L. DANIEL, Director, Cook
County Department of Public Aid, anda EDWARD J. BARRETT, ~
Comptroller of Cook County, and EDWARD T.. WEAVER, Director,
Illinois Department of Public Aid, their agents, including
_. 122
Illinois, their employees, and all Persons in active
poncert and participation with them, are hereby permanent-
ly enjoined from failing to make determinations of eligi-
bility and mailing either the first full AABD -assistance
theck or notification of denial of assistance, within
sees days from the date of application as to appli-
nts for aid to the aged and blind under the AABD pro-
gram in the State of Illinois, and within sixty days
from the Gate of application as to applicants for aid
9 the disabled under the AABD program in the State of
Illinois, except as provided in paragraph 3, infra.
2. The entitlement of all eligible AABD applicants
n the State of Illinois shall attach no later than ‘the
In any case in which eligibility is determined
subsequent to the thirtieth day or sixtieth day, respec-
vely, the applicant Shall be entitled to AABD assistance
retroactive at the very least to the thirtieth (30th) day
or sixtieth (60th) day, respectively, subject only to the
eption in Paragraph 3, infra. If the applicant is
hied AABD assistance retroactive to the thirtieth (30th)
or sixtieth (60th) day, respectively, pursuant to Paragraph
am
TS >
3, infra, said applicant must receive a written Statement
explaining (a) the unusual circumstances, referred to in
paragraph 3, upon which the denial is based, and (b) that
the applicant has the right to appeal within sixty (60)
days this decision of the County Department of Public Aid,
3. The thirty-day requirement as defined in para-
graphs 1 and 2 and in 45 C.P.R. $206.10 (a) (36 Fed.Reg.
3864, February 29, 1972) shall be Strictly complied with
except in unusual circumstances, e.g., where the agency
cannot” reach a decision because of failure or delay on
the part of the applicant or an examining Physician, ‘or
because of some acministratiye or other emergency that
could not be controlled by the agency,- in which instances
the case record Shows the cause for the Celay.
4. Illinois Categorical Assistance Manual, Section
5. That the defendant EDWARD T. WEAVER, Director,
Illinois Department Of Public Aid, his agents, including
all of the County Departments of Public Aid in the State
of Tllinois,ang employees, and all Persons in active
concert and Participation with them, are hereby enjoined
applied between July 1, 1968 and April 16, 1972, and were
determined eligible, as follows:
(a) Por those aged and blind applicants whose
first full AABD check was not mailed within thirty
days from the date of application, AABD assistance
for the period beginning with the thirtieth day from
the date of application to the date the applicant's
entitlement to AABD became dttviitin :
(b) (i) For those disabled aboliouits wo ap-
Plied between July 1, 1968 ana December 31, 1970,
whose first full AABD check was not mailed within
forty-five days from the date of application, AABD
assistance for the period beginning with the forty-
fifth day from the date of application to the date
the applicant's entitlement became effective;
(ii) For those disabled applicants who ap-
Plied between January 1, 1971 and April 16, 1971,
whose first full AABD check was not mailed within
sixty days from-the date of application, AABD as-
sistance for the period beginning with the sixtieth
day from. the date of application to the date the ap-
Plicant's entitlement became effective.
These AABD benefits shall be mailed to those persons cur-
reutly receiving AABD within eight months with an explanatory
-4~
a
letter, said letter having been first approved by plain-
tiffs’ attorney. Any AABD benefits received pursuant to
this paragraph shall not be Geemed income or resources
under Article III of the Illinois Public Aid Code.
For those persons not presently receiving AABD:
(a) A certified letter (return receipt
requested), said letter having been first ap-
proved by plaintiffs' attorney, shall be sent
to the last known address of the person, inform-
ing him in concise and easily understandable terms
that he is entitled to a specified amount of AABD
benefits wrongfully withheld, and that he may
Claim such amount by contacting the County De-
Partment of Public Aid at a specified address,
within 45 days from the receipt of said letter.
(b) If the County Department of Public Aida
does not receive a claim for the AABD benefits
within 45 days from the date of actual notice to
the person, the right to said AABD benefits shall
be forfeited and the file shall be closed. Per-
sons who do not receive actual notice do not for-
feit their rights to AABD benefits ee with-
held under this provision.
A ene
6. Within 15 days from the date of this decree, de-
fendant EDWARD fT. WEAVER, Director, Illinois Department
of Public aia, Shall submit to the Court and the Plain-~
tiffs' attorney a detailed Statement as to the method
for effectuating the relief required by para
of this Decree.
gtaph 5, supra,
Any disputes between the Parties as to
whether the Procedures and Steps outlined by the defendant
WEAVER will fulfil) the requirements
of this Decree will
be resolved by the Court.
a
7. The defendants Shall have the continuing obliga-
tion to submit to the Court and to the plaintiffs'
attorney
a detailed monthly report inéicating the number of AABD
applications disposed of by lengtf of time from the date
of application, for each county in the
time for processing AABD applications, until such time
that such reports establish compliance '
with the terms of
this Order for six months.
8. Defendant EDWARD Tf. WEAVER,
Department of Public Aid, Shall issue
Director, Iliinois
a bulletin of the
Illinois Department of Public Aid incorporating the essence
judgment within 15 days from the entry
°f this
thereof.
——
” This judgment shall be binding upon defendants,
their officers, agents, servants, employees and their
successors, and upon those persons in active concert or
participation with them who receive actual notice of the
judgment by personal service or Otherwise. ~
10. The prayer of the plaintiffs for Punitive damages
against the defendant HAROLD 0. SWANK is hereby denied,
11.
This Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction
over this cause for all purposes. ;
ENTER:
Alexander Jj. fot
United States istri Court
Dated: Mares, 1S, 14 Tt
.
a
I1lfnols Deparcecnt of Public Aid
wen
MAG APPLICATIONS DISPOSED EY PROCRAY
© omy
eg fee + Bumber and Pereent Disposed Within Tice Linits + ~
> e P ° 3 . ad a i ° Pe, , .
: og Me ee : ve
ADC-C . OAA “BA
STATE 9,776 es 43
Ko. in time 9,702 717
Z in time 99.2 95.6.-. 7. * 63.7
. . ae .
DOWSTATE _# 4.9625 308 th 99
Bo. in tire 4,617 “ 304 17
z in tine. 99.8 . 98.7 e 85.0
° a? . ~
CoK , 2°. .§,3S2 442 23°
So. in tice 5,085 “413 : 19
z in time : 98.7" ¢ 4 . ' 82.6
REGION 1A ‘. 0" = iar hae
Ko. in tine 28 =
Z in tive 100.0 100.0 100.0
REGICN 1B 658 ge ga oF,
Ko. in tine 68 33 Pe ae Fo.
z fa tine 100.0 a 100.0 % 100.0 ;
FECIOR 2 : 960- - 4 : 9
Ko. in tine oo dba he ies De
{Z in tine 9954 . 95.9 * 66.7 ae
RECO 3A sss -e* Sts
Ko. in tice 555. 38. 2
Z in tize 100.0 .* 100.0 + 100.0.
REGION 333i; 399 Leper a 2
iXo. in ti ease Me Et ae Ke
i= gn a. I So We” ee
“arora eee ee
‘Ko. in tie 825 eee Se
ia tine 100.0 300.0 100.0
. hie. pe gee aan re
Lictox $ "$80 o -: oe a “° | .- 357. 784
. Te. in tize $80 I ee Pca: eae 784
4% tice -200.0 "200.0 .. 100.0 - - * 100.0 100.0 —
ei Wiis
‘ -
an. wad * os ~}
Pa Rie ° . © + cha Be
~ eile Sm we eo! Se ee bwense: -_— - soo ome —— i _
5 ‘ Miduols Sryncecent of Public Ald
f ein MAC, APPLICAT US HISTOSED BY PROCRAY ; |
[. : ‘ | Rucber and Percent Disposed Within Thee Lintes } ”
ap , Pobruiry 1973 : a
. ; e . '
oe
-
23
'
w
a
2
<
.
Z .
*@&
*
¥
:
;
P
E
i
Ege
~ aS
ad wg
ee
‘
OO ere. 5
’
.
~ 300K ran ees at he Ree eS
Wo. in tire 4,304 ">" 325 rid ae ea 12,002 | j
tine . 97.6 Ff 9 fo 8S OT: 98.71
wciow An * ggg: Nw. ott: . ; Vee el
Xo. in. tine “399 139
Zintiwe ... 99.8
——
ice ,
6 ome
> we
one
“
;
:
|
8
Yr ONN:. OFN
OF TOTAL APPLICATIONS ACTIVITY pees
POR THE MONTH OF MAY, 1973
4
—_— ye :: ISPOSITIOoNS : RENDING ATE
a Sa om? aS Received - | On Harié—|—Total -— io —tess——
‘ é' Brought Durii Duri Duri: Transfers | - | Than
; oug ng ag ng
. | BRSIRICT OFFICES Torwaré | Month Month Month Approvals ‘| Denials Out ____|_—Total—}—31-Days—
SY TOTAL Witter ee 15,894 29,923 | 25,472 20,629 4, B40 2 * be 7
, eee eee BA GS a ee eS 5 ahaa EE BS wer ih
ATCELD GARDENS = --e-— 19° - 32 Sl 33 26 ; : ge, By e : yo a
; GeSRINE HOMES dg 62 67. 62 ae ae SE : ae a
. EXCLEwood Pat ig - in * 867 2,038 80% 600 204 ‘4 ag
, Ge RFTELD Ae ge 101 7. : 475° 333 231 ie e- § 120 6 |
HI NRY HORNER aed f ~< <>:
_ KENs200 bn ght ak 90 3x ie 266 187 79 . 146 » ae ..: 1
UNT SORTR it Se ey Be ee bbs " 62 : bo “277 bP cu oS Re (Se =
oF: wOISoR mg , 3 290 323 * 307 * 2h3 - £ ae. 16 ...*. 2. |.
"* socurcan ee om 2 a4 62 2% * — Bho mo : - ae 3
- : RORTHERN y 18 : 1,53 2,450 2,152 ‘ gj 89 --
* OX FOREST HOSPITAL Re Se To Bs Ee Bee é . n
, @XLAD are ow ee? p32 .. oe & S 204 72 ‘es 102 62
‘} BARK MANOR sy fs 99 . 456. 35 : 302, . 105 ‘ 8, 147.
+ SCUTHERR 298 2,163 2,455 ° | 2,026 368 430 re 427 423 .
S(UTS SUBURBAN "s 481 667 47 1 232 a 293 «| 157
RiBERT TAYLOR RQES “© -]- wh 87 201 # 95 2: 5 3.
- ¢ WAS, MBS +t ‘J i 5e 2) 53 50 Resear ’ ' 6
* SiST SUBURBAN 229 Ae 219 162 57 ne z
si STERN , 63 5TT 640 - 553 334 219 (or ok 4 ; /
NCSER PARK 5. -70 fF 00 : Tm | +676 550 4 ae nd A]
.* WOODLAMR ; : 79 248 327 25 225 : -———— |, 68 :
/ GSTRAL ASSISTANCE : 553 2,718, 3,272 2, 2,222 563 .. . $87 STT
‘ ) SEREINS HOME SERVICE 260 - 329+ 489 318 153 . 1235 an 152
' WACLD ICKES HOSS 4 +, 62 . 6 59 ye Pane EB JE, & é
wg RCSPELL CARDEKS ~ : i! Meee 35 28 7 é : :
SVATEVAY GARDENS se 13 <3 ie a: < a 1, = T Pn
- HYSPITAL ASST. SFRVI ’ ? re 8 :
+ CCK COUNTY HOSP. SERV, Br 21308 2,995 2,139 ns a,bab 856 a
| TiOTSCTIVE PAYEE 8s e 4 e rs :
1 ‘ : ‘
' oy © . Y- .
— ~_— ae mr — . —— ie ‘3 -_ a 4 — -_ ne of9 2 age SE 2+ er . si SERS ot nee ES e nk
i
. fev
Ty Ree
“=
: rH
a
Oe wpe
“4
- i
Gwe. |.
s
¢
BRB othr yy,
MOO ee 5
ee
MICKICAN
RORUHERN eg
C\W FCREST HCSPITAL *-
OULAND .
PAR MANOR
SOUTHERN
Sil SUBURBAN mf
RISERT TAYLOR HOMES -..-"
-* JA B, WELLS
WEST SUBURBAN
WISTERN
WICKER PARK ‘
VNSLAY
GiNTRAL ASSISTANCE |
NIRSING HOME SERVICE
HIROLD ICKES HOMES
RXEMELL GARDENS
« STATEVAY GARDENS 4
HOSPITAL ASST. SERVICE -
CCK COUNTY HOSP, SERV,
* PROTECTIVE PAYEE
nwrw
af,
a
bil
sti:
. 2 ee
a :
°
eee ee
oT ome SF Ma,
| fr eee
‘. - - e
os te
*,e%e
-- °
hd %
.
-
~ *
g Peo*rg e
%
‘Perrmubuee euaerouy
POAWKUH AeA ID’ p -
POAWDNWH AOA p
eene**
*?¢
° "e ‘, : : oy Mig
- °e . ‘
78
B wae’ toe BRENGANPSE Lae we’ 8
- he
. ° ot “y
. ©
| Fee GBBRBoe BRBG UTR
v*
~y
a
Bem RECEP PEW BREE, SEH me 3
,-G3PA Form PaS 18 (Rev. 2072) +
ba wr lh gan
fC ;
CAX FOREST
te
FARK MANOR ‘ ~
SOUTHERN °
' SOUTH SUBURBAN
ROPCRT TAYLOR MOMES
’ TAB, WELLS
>» ezer SUBURBAN
SESTERN
SICLER PARK ~
t SICDLALY
*e-y GESERAL ASSISTANCE.
i
!
C20: COUNTY HOSP. SERV,
te exe
a row tow =
~
.
re)
: + Pest.
ares a
eS Sete Blt.
a -+
. .
- «
Pie RwwP
w ~~ :
- ee pe
ind ‘.
owe.
“* ‘ sg ——
+!
| CPA Torm Pars 18
* ooers
(Rev. 2°72) i
—
-
Page 3 of 9 Pages ge
Pd
‘ . . tds
Foi oe | ene pepmem | chelit Sel
4 .
. 2 eae eet bende em
OF FUBLIC ALD
bes Accs eS See ee RESEARCH AND STATISTICS ee ee p See.
‘ ; it ee REPORT OF DA APPLICATIONS ACTIVITY —_
: FOR THE MONTH OF MAY, 1973 at : sa
; =e, DISPOSITIONS PENDING AT END o
. ‘ Received |~On Hand | Total vies. tial aks Sits” RAF Seta oe
» * _ Brought | During “| “During-—~| ~During Waste |~ than | 31 tH
{ Z SIRICT OFFICES Lorveré | Month Month Month Approvals. Denials Out Total 31D 60 De
I ren TC (i ear | 2m | eas | ate | (ke Hiri 2% 538 36
.' oe . Me we ee 3 ? 443. ee ee i
A.TCELD GARDENS ie ee “se 2 ae - é r ga cqunemesiiatiin SNe ith ——s Snails —— =.
c Saist HOSS 2°: om o- 4 oo * t H, es T° - '
ESLESOOD vie 3 . : . 2
GARTIELD ae B A eer : ee; wt 60 ee ees 30— ve
ee es “ic dt we lie? ‘02 6 6 |.» aa - 2
K:8K009 tte eg shee ~ : j ie F
LER NORTH pie vee 2° 36h _ 273° = mt. 3 oe
% D1SO% —_. . me Tf oe 110-2 |. 7 a) 35 iz 9 gm |:
ewe M.CRICAN ** teats hi ¢ 104 i - 104 90° ily, Sag de 7 aie os
+d MMTMERM gs : 350 366 a a 292 55 19 9
. 9 ©& FOREST HOSPITAL 4 “33 a 13 20 3 Be
. , OkLaD ; gz 147 196, 95 - ° uu ii é
Pew. ° ; 3 - a 2 R + ef 32 32 .
: SUTKERN - ; ; , ' ' .
“\ STH SUBURBAN , 6. i-_ 159 73 ae LP. : B ; B 2%
+ ROPERT TAYLOR HOMES 2 Hf 2 un ee cn
TA 3, WELLS ees to ne oe pe eee Ea SED 2 a:
| WIST SUPURBAN ' ee e. et ae 50 37 23°} shin 30 25 $s
$. WSTERS 12 103] ,»! us 100 59° . Tree eee 15 15
‘ S.CKER PARK pbs 184 , 19 , 168 132 . 36 oa? = ~ !
SOU LAM 4 . & 3 A B .. ae ; : —— uv :
: GXERAL ASSISTANCE 4 : ae :
/ °° SIRSING HOME SERVICE 35° 94 120 % a ‘20 ° 54 ip ub
/ - WOLD ICKES HOMES 2 . » i 8 7. 2 2 2
| RESELL CARDEXS . af Pes. ‘ ; 9 . hs... & ‘
S CATEXAY GARDENS ' ee -& 7 2 1 2 2
+ 4 KOSPITAL ASST, SERVICE ° ‘eo -@.1. we: 4. a ~— Ig 22 un 9/2
_ CXF CORTY HOSP. SERV, Bist fee es Or. 4
' PISTECTIVE PAYEE Fe 5 ite een a i a
(~
C°?A Tora PA-$ 18 (Rev. 2-72)
, « Paged Of9 Pages
a/T3 Be :
at Be Edit ae
s - ‘ erry am. > © cee sine eee cane
- +. come Or” ' . ; Bo :
/
* BOODLARN
“"? GENERAL ASSISTANCE
' | SRSING NOME SERVICE
«| - S:ATEKAY Gapexs
} MOSFITAL ASST. SCAVICE °
“*" PROUECTIVE PAYEE
COOK
‘4 quam a eee paatmemnees santtaiies Sn! ed
os
Bef atts, POR THE MONTH OP MAY, 1973 ° — m->
RISPOSTTIONS PENDIZ
S'CTH SUBURBAN
-
371° 301. im
Sake
er
>
' ROECRT TAYLOR HOMES
- WA B, WELLS
netiyy '
, : rT
be Total 60
iat en is) 16 4,908 5.678 | 4m. | 3,366 | 2,827 - - 7 sot ..6
i JENS ADDAMS + Eilean @ 17 16 15 e | 8 2 . <a. ss
| A TSTLD GARDENS... 4. oo 2h aT | ——-8—|——— o —- | ag -. | 99]
| G.SRINT HOMES , i, 3 _ = 2 29 4 ° ; ce é
ENGLEWOOD oosg : ne 2 - ; °
GeRFIELD 3: i 5h : 238 162 ik 33 - 7} -
‘Meme. LC a 19 11 - o e
Geen nome RY 38 291 285 aba te (Me ee
: . - "fe Pee. gee } ie Sines oe emame, © cen. | ogee
“MDISON * : 4 101 a 68 ~ s aE See t Bi SORRY
, eee ke B 7) + | "239 « - ae eT
: SORTHER Me}, a : * Sr -° on ei
GX FOREST HOSPITAL A 4 oe « £4 ao “
; OSD Cs 4 ce | - 134 95 09
#,2K MANOR, . 4h . 252 : ©
} SU TNERE Hi : e.
3 Ye oe 4g i‘
“2ST SUBURBAN . o>. FT = sd
, =SSTERN + 339 2 ni
}
—*
MARCLD ICKES HOMES
EHWELL GARDENS
Pt eee a”
* hee
*,
* “Be: S270 Pitas
-<,%> eee nt i
owcrereees
Cd0% COUNTY HOSP; SERV. ~~
ue, BERG IESE, Sakeetieee |
ry
z
es
Gero uBslte tes, Sout
‘ BE nw ' ERESY ow Bae ee 38
11 Bewn SBREY
'' rss, S8BES
bS
ve BGRE. a8
.
1 BE pws FRESE ew SESE Kee
SUM Ue 8 840 89 8 1-8 8-0 8 8%
”“
, GPA Form PA-S 18 (Rev. 2 <4
en. es 5 gf %) Page 5 of © Pages 435
4 AEE Seber ir ee Oe Aap, eae cine ree.: meemmengmemantions aati Rates? 8 + nacho le
Pe aad
J
—
é ae Sitter see male FOR eka COOK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AID a
m3 ET argo" ngmwte aime at Sig del: Dialed noe tapes: tea RESEARCH AND STATISTICS
- ” )
aa PENDING AT EWpD OF
vfs’ * . : -~Less—— |——— [=
_ Brought Than 31
Tima “723 3,79L>~}- 4,524. | 3,749. 2,890 858 | 2. 754 e
JUT AAS 2° 16 1B 16 | wa 2 'eoae ok 2 eet!
ATCELD GARDENS - 6. i aoe 20 "5 oo 2° 2 —}
Cull HOGS me Soe, 2 _ 20 20 . P ee 2 '
ENGLEWOOD Bie 0) eee 23 me 157 : 153 7 36 iy + .
G RFIELD cs’ 4 : ° 103 * 8 72 n Ris . 2 19 2
K'NY HORNER et Sey uw. ate o. Se oun 5 .** :
K°K.00D ‘ Ww... 71 85. -. 60 - 20 Je up 25 25
L-STR NORTH nae 228 - a eae” Se ee eee eee tgs ar Gre 7 -
MDISCH ares +, an ce 8 * 56 7 oA ey ee 3 .
WCMICAN 2 | the 83 . "89 69° of , jr ae u .
ep -) see 2166 igi 2 2 we 22
* ON FO
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.