Consiglio v. Department of Financial & Professional Regulation
2013 IL App (1st) 121142
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Consolidated appeals challenge the constitutionality of 2105-165 of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation Law as applied to health-care workers with prior convictions.
- Plaintiffs Angelo Consiglio, Nercy Jafari, Mohammed Kalleeluddin (MDs) and Bradley Hayashi (DC) had licenses to practice medicine or chiropractic medicine in Illinois and were previously convicted of patient-related batteries.
- Act provides: once a triggering conviction occurs, licensees shall be permanently revoked without a hearing; Act became effective August 20, 2011.
- Department revoked plaintiffs’ licenses under the Act for pre-enactment convictions, prompting separate circuit court actions seeking declarations and injunctions.
- Court reviews de novo whether the complaints state cognizable constitutional claims, given that Section 2-615 dismissals require sufficiency of the complaints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Act apply to pre-enactment convictions (retroactivity)? | Act is retroactive and offends due process. | Act applies to triggering events, including pre-enactment convictions, by plain language. | Act applies; not retroactive under Landgraf analysis. |
| Does absence of a hearing violates due process? | License revocation without a hearing deprives due process. | Hearing not required; notice and written challenge suffice. | No due-process violation; no hearing required. |
| Does application of the Act violate ex post facto prohibitions? | Imposes punishment for pre-enactment acts. | Civil, nonpunitive aims to protect public health; not ex post facto. | Not ex post facto. |
| Does the Act violate double jeopardy? | Mandatory revocation adds punishment for the same conduct. | Revocation is civil and not punitive; not double jeopardy. | Not punitive; does not trigger double jeopardy. |
| Does the Act impair contracts under the Contracts Clause? | Impairs consent orders, violating the Contracts Clause. | Legislature may regulate future conduct to protect public health; police power justifies impairment. | Impairment reasonable and necessary to serve public interest; not unconstitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (retrospective effects analyzed under Landgraf framework)
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Will County Collector, 196 Ill. 2d 27 (Ill. 2001) (interpretation of legislative intent and retroactivity in Illinois context)
- Bhalerao v. Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation, 834 F. Supp. 2d 775 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (seven Kennedy factors on punitive vs. nonpunitive nature of sanctions)
- Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1963) (seven-factor test for punitive penalties)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (U.S. 2003) (ex post facto analysis in modern context)