Background
Marco Gutierrez, a correctional officer at Hill Correctional Center, stopped working after testing positive for COVID-19 in April 2021. To keep his disability-related absences authorized, he was required to submit a physician-completed CMS-95 statement every 30 days. Gutierrez complied until August 2022, when his treating physician stopped completing the forms and referred him to a post-COVID clinic.
Gutierrez did not submit further CMS-95 statements before the Illinois Department of Corrections discharged him in February 2023. Although his attorney had advised state officials that Gutierrez was having difficulty finding another physician, Gutierrez acknowledged that he knew about the reporting requirement and had not complied with it. The Illinois Civil Service Commission adopted an administrative law judge’s recommendation upholding the discharge, and the circuit court confirmed the Commission’s decision.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed. Because Gutierrez did not challenge the Commission’s factual findings or deny that he failed to submit the required forms, the sole issue was whether those findings supplied a sufficient basis for discharge. The court held that the Commission’s decision was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unrelated to the requirements of service.
The Commission properly considered Gutierrez’s significant tenure, his three prior suspensions for unauthorized absences, his knowledge of the documentation requirement, and the months of unauthorized absences resulting from his noncompliance. Gutierrez did not demonstrate what efforts he made during that period to obtain treatment, find another physician, or keep the Department informed. The court also rejected his contention that the Commission relied on an uncharged “resign, retire, or discharge” theory, explaining that the Commission expressly disclaimed that theory and did not base its decision on the medical conclusions in forms submitted after his discharge.
Key Takeaways
- An employee’s knowing failure to provide required medical documentation can convert disability-related absences into unauthorized absences supporting discharge.
- On administrative review, the question is whether the agency substantiated its chosen discipline, not whether the reviewing court would have imposed a different penalty.
- The Commission could consider Gutierrez’s prior discipline for unauthorized absences and was not required to treat post-discharge medical forms as excusing his earlier noncompliance.
Why It Matters
The order reinforces that extended medically related absences do not eliminate an employee’s obligation to follow established leave-verification procedures. Difficulty obtaining documentation may be relevant, but it does not necessarily make discharge arbitrary when the employee knew the rules and failed to show adequate efforts to comply or communicate.
The decision also illustrates the deferential review applied to agency discipline: when the agency considers the relevant employment record and connects the proven misconduct to the discipline and efficiency of public service, a court will not substitute its own preferred penalty.