A writ of certiorari, however, "may not be used to review the correctness of a decision by the Court of Claims based upon the merits of the case before it." Jaros v. Illinois Court of Claims, 2021 IL App (2d) 200397, ¶ 24, 190 N.E.3d 1277 (quoting Reichert, 203 Ill.2d at 261).

In short, "certiorari may not be used to review the correctness of a decision by the Court of Claims based upon the merits of the case before it." Id.; see Jaros v. Illinois Court of Claims, 2021 IL App (2d) 200397, ¶¶ 29-30; Krozel, 2017 IL App (1st) 162068, ¶ 14; Hastings v. State, 2015 IL App (5th) 130527, ¶ 17; Reichert v. Court of Claims, 389 Ill.App.3d 999, 1002-04 (2009) ("Reichert II"); Reyes v. Court of Claims, 299 Ill.App.3d 1097, 1105 (1998) (collectively finding that certiorari may only be used to address alleged deprivations of due process not to review whether a court has issued a correct decision on the merits). ¶ 66 The issue before this court is whether Lathon received due process in the Court of Claims, not, as the majority posits, (1) "[h]ow far can the Court of Claims go from the actual claim before one can say that the claimant's claim is not being heard" (supra ¶ 46) or (2) "[i]f the Court of Claims is permitted to misapprehend his claim, as the circuit court found, shouldn't it then be required to apply the law that applies to the misapprehended claim."