Bhalerao v. Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulations
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136719
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- Dr. Jayant Bhalerao has been licensed in Illinois since 1973, practicing cardiology/internal medicine at a suburban clinic.
- In 2000, a jury convicted him of misdemeanor criminal battery related to a charge of sexual conduct with a patient; the sexual abuse charge was acquitted.
- The 2002 IDFPR disciplinary action reprimanded him and required a chaperone for female patient exams; his license remained active and in good standing.
- Effective August 20, 2011, 20 ILCS 2105/2105-165(a) mandated permanent revocation of licenses for specified offenses, without a hearing.
- IDFPR issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke on October 7, 2011; Bhalerao challenged the revocation and sought a preliminary injunction.
- The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction, concluding plaintiff lacks likelihood of success on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process retroactivity | Bhalerao asserts §2105-165(a) is retroactive and/or lacks rational basis. | State argues statute applies prospectively and has rational public-policy rationale. | No likelihood of success; statute not retroactive per case law; rational basis shown. |
| Procedural due process | Bhalerao contends process provided was unconstitutional as applied. | Statute forecloses discretionary relief; due process satisfied given conviction and statutory scheme. | No likelihood of success; hearing not required where risk of erroneous revocation is low and public interest high. |
| Double Jeopardy | Revocation is punishment for prior criminal conduct in violation of double jeopardy. | Sanction is civil, not criminal; intended to protect public health. | No likelihood of success; statute is civil and not a criminal penalty under Kennedy factors. |
| Ex post facto | §2105-165(a) operates retroactively and penalizes past conduct. | Statute creates prospective obligations and is non-punitive. | No likelihood of success; not retroactive or punitive; ex post facto not violated. |
| Contracts Clause | retroactive application impairs existing contracts between plaintiff and the Board. | police power to regulate professional licenses overrides contracts concerns. | No likelihood of success; public health policy and police power permit the action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1994) (retrospective effects of new provisions depend on new legal consequences, not mere use of antecedent facts)
- United States v. Leach, 639 F.3d 769 (7th Cir., 2011) (SORNA creates prospective obligations based on history; not retroactive punishment)
- Cox v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n., 138 F.3d 268 (7th Cir., 1998) (Kennedy factors for punitive vs civil sanctions; revocation can be civil with public-protection aims)
- Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1997) (due process and pre-deprivation hearings; punishment vs regulatory sanction context)
- Kaplan v. Department of Registration and Ed., 361 N.E.2d 626 (Ill. App. Ct. 1977) (revocation of medical license for conviction supports public-protection aims)
- Hawker v. People of New York, 18 S. Ct. 573 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1898) (historical authority for states to regulate professions and discipline licenses)