1-07-2267
3
had knowledge of the facts of the preparation and mailing of the decision to plaintiff.
Zaper explained how decisions ready for distribution are stacked and assigned a future
certain mailing date, which is entered into the Board’s computer record keeping system.
The decisions are then stamped with the assigned mailing dates and duplicated as
necessary to provide copies for distribution. On the morning of the mailing date, the
decisions are transported to the mailing room for mailing that afternoon to all parties and
representatives of record. A separate mailing/decision date is entered in the department’s
computer record keeping system and also marked on the jacket of the Board’s file. Zaper
stated that he personally checked the Board’s case file and computer docket system,
which indicated that the decision was mailed to plaintiff on April 11, 2007.
At the hearing on the motion held on July 10, 2007, the circuit court granted the
motion to dismiss. Still acting pro se, plaintiff timely appealed the decision of the circuit
court. Counsel was subsequently appointed to represent plaintiff.
II. ANALYSIS
A motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code admits the legal
sufficiency of the plaintiff’s complaint, but asserts an affirmative defense or other matter
that avoids or defeats the plaintiff’s claim. DeLuna v. Burciaga, 223 Ill. 2d 49, 59
(2006). “Section 2-619 motions present a question of law, and we review rulings thereon
de novo.” DeLuna, 223 Ill. 2d at 59.
Defendants IDES, the Director of IDES, the Board, and Rexnord Industries argue
that we cannot rely upon plaintiff’s statement of the facts because his appellate brief
contains documents not properly included in the record on appeal. Supreme Court Rule
