The fact that the reorganization of the Department could account for the failure to send Mrs. Mann actual notice of their decision or an explanation of the check is no excuse. • 1, 2 In Isabell v. Department of Public Aid (1974), 18 Ill. App.3d 868, 310 N.E.2d 742, this court dealt with the precise question of whether actual and/or constructive notice is required. There it was held that the 60-day period did not begin to run until the applicant or recipient received actual notice of the decision.
(Emphasis added.) Johnson, 155 Ill. App.3d at 618-19, 508 N.E.2d at 353, citing Isabell v. Department of Public Aid, 18 Ill. App.3d 868, 873, 310 N.E.2d 742, 745 (1974), and Mann v. Department of Public Aid, 31 Ill. App.3d 430, 432, 333 N.E.2d 233, 235 (1975). However, these cases do not support Johnson's conclusion.
A final and binding decision by an administrative agency requires, at the very least, that the agency has taken some definitive action with regard to the application before it and that the applicant has been informed of the action. (See Isabell v. Department of Public Aid (1974), 18 Ill. App.3d 868, 872, 310 N.E.2d 742.) In addition, the applicant must be adequately informed of the right to appeal the agency's decision and of the time period for doing so. Keller v. Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity Benefit Fund (1993), 245 Ill. App.3d 48, 53, 614 N.E.2d 323; Johnson v. State Employees Retirement System (1987), 155 Ill. App.3d 616, 619, 508 N.E.2d 351.
This court has held, however, that a filing period such as the 35-day period here does not begin to run until the agency has provided the plaintiff with adequate notice of its decision. ( Isabell v. Department of Public Aid (1974), 18 Ill. App.3d 868, 873, 310 N.E.2d 742, 745, relied upon in Mann v. Department of Public Aid (1975), 31 Ill. App.3d 430, 432, 333 N.E.2d 233, 235.) In the instant case, both parties and the trial court all agree that the better practice would have been for defendant to include the appeal information with its final decision.
The Department argues, however, that plaintiff had constructive and/or actual notice of the decision to place her on a Plan. This, it contends, was sufficient to trigger the 60-day period. The sufficiency of constructive notice has previously been addressed and rejected in Mann v. Department of Public Aid (1975), 31 Ill. App.3d 430, 333 N.E.2d 233, and Isabell v. Department of Public Aid (1974), 18 Ill. App.3d 868, 310 N.E.2d 742. The language of these decisions, however, leaves open the possible sufficiency of actual notice. The Department argues that the actual notice in this cause consisted of the discussion of October 27, 1980, memorialized in the misaddressed letter.