DIGEST OF ADJUDICATION PRECEDENTS PR
PR-49 (01/11)
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Procedure/PR 440.10
DOCKET/DATE Fedorev v. Doherty, 711 N.E. 2d 1223 (1999)
AUTHORITY Administrative Review Law
TITLE Judicial review of Board of Review decision
SUBTITLE Notice requirement to secure judicial review
CROSS-REFERENCE None
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the Board of Review under the Administrative Review Law. The
Administrative Review Law requires that all parties to judicial review of administrative action be named and a summons served
upon them within thirty five days of the receipt of the administrative decision. action. Although the claimant filed a complaint for
administrative review within thirty five days, the claimant did not name the Board of Review or its members which issued the
decision sought to be reviewed. The claimant’s complaint only named the Director of the Department of Employment Security and
the employer in the case. The circuit court dismissed the claimant’s suit for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed.
HELD: The appellate court held that the claimant’s failure to name and serve the Board of Review or any of its members which
issued the administrative decision at issue did not comply with the Administrative Review Law. The Director of the Department of
Employment Security performs administrative functions with respect to the Board of Review but the Director does not control or
direct the Board’s administrative decisions. Accordingly, the court has no subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint.
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Procedure/PR 440.10
DOCKET/DATE New York Carpet World, Inc. v. IDES, 769 N.E. 2d 1321 (1996)
AUTHORITY Administrative Review Law
TITLE Judicial review of Board of Review decision
SUBTITLE Notice requirement to secure judicial review
CROSS-REFERENCE None
The employer sought judicial review of a decision of the Board of Review under the Administrative Review Law. The
Administrative Review Law requires that all parties to judicial review of administrative action be served within thirty five days of
the receipt of the administrative decision. Although the employer filed a complaint for administrative review within thirty five
days, the complaint did not name the Board of Review as a party and no summons was served on the Board of Review within the
thirty five period. The employer instead served the Department of Employment Security. The Board of Review did, however,
receive a copy of the complaint and summons forwarded to it by the Department of Employment Security within the thirty five day
period. The employer contended that the Board of Review was administered by the Department of Employment Security and that
the Department was a misnomer for the Board of Review. The circuit court dismissed the claimant’s suit for lack of jurisdiction. It
also denied the employer’s request to amend its complaint naming the Board of Review. The appellate court affirmed.
HELD: The appellate court stated that the Board of Review was the administrative agency required to be served under the
Administrative Review Law as a condition for obtaining judicial review. The court held that there was no misnomer and that the
employer could not amend its complaint naming the Board of Review as a party after the thirty five day period for review under
the Administrative Review Law had expired.
