2022 IL App (1st) 211530
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- Dr. Shahid Masood (physician with a Controlled Substance License) faced an administrative complaint alleging improper prescribing and care to multiple patients; four counts were alleged in the amended complaint.
- After a multi‑day administrative hearing (transcript/exhibits not in the appellate common law record), the ALJ found two counts proven by clear and convincing evidence: improper prescribing to S.W. (a nurse with substance‑abuse history) and to M.S. (a long‑time out‑of‑state patient who showed drug‑seeking behavior).
- The ALJ emphasized excessive monthly quantities, failure to monitor or perform risk assessments, ignored red flags (family warnings, lost/stolen reports, overdose), and a prior DEA Memorandum of Agreement restricting Schedule II prescribing. He recommended indefinite suspension of Masood’s physician and controlled‑substance licenses for a minimum of two years.
- The Medical Disciplinary Board adopted the ALJ’s findings; the Acting Director entered an order suspending both licenses indefinitely with a two‑year minimum.
- Masood filed for administrative review and an emergency motion to stay enforcement pending review, arguing the suspension would cause dire personal and patient consequences. The circuit court denied the stay as contrary to public policy and because Masood failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.
- On appeal, the First District affirmed, principally noting (1) the highly deferential abuse‑of‑discretion standard for stay motions and (2) Masood’s failure to supply a sufficient record (no hearing transcripts, ALJ exhibits, or settled bystander’s report), requiring the presumption the trial court acted properly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying an emergency stay of the license suspension | Masood argued the court erred in denying a stay and that the suspension causes dire consequences and deprives him of livelihood; he maintained the court misapplied public policy | Department argued Masood failed to meet the three elements of "good cause" under 735 ILCS 5/3‑111(a)(1): preserving status quo without endangering public, consistency with public policy, and reasonable likelihood of success | Denied — no abuse of discretion; appellate court affirmed given deferential standard and inadequate record to show error |
| Whether public policy categorically barred a stay or the court misinterpreted the statute | Masood contended the court wrongly read public policy to categorically prohibit stays, rendering the stay statute meaningless | Department maintained the court properly exercised discretion, noting the egregious public‑safety concerns of direct patient‑care misconduct | Court rejected Masood’s characterization of the order; even if court misstated public policy, Masood still had to prove the other statutory elements and failed to do so |
| Whether Masood demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of his administrative challenge | Masood argued numerous evidentiary and procedural errors at the ALJ level (improperly limited cross‑examination, improper admissions, misweighing evidence, credibility determinations) | Department argued most claims were discretionary credibility/evidentiary rulings and not reversible absent record showing abuse of discretion | Court held Masood failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success; lack of transcript/exhibits prevented meaningful review of those claims |
| Whether the appellate record’s insufficiency precludes reversal | Masood supplied only the common law record and an unsworn/uncertified attorney affidavit in the appendix | Department emphasized the absence of a transcript or certified bystander’s report and that appellate courts must presume trial court rulings correct when record is incomplete | Court held the incomplete record mandated affirmance under Foutch and related authorities — errors are presumed not shown when record lacks necessary proceedings/transcripts |
Key Cases Cited
- Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill.2d 389 (1984) (appellant must provide a sufficiently complete record or appellate court will presume trial court acted properly)
- Kenny v. Kenny Industries Inc., 406 Ill. App. 3d 56 (2010) (movant bears burden to substantiate each element for stay)
- Metz v. Department of Professional Regulation, 332 Ill. App. 3d 1033 (2002) (failure to meet any single statutory element for stay is fatal)
- Anderson v. Department of Professional Regulation, 348 Ill. App. 3d 554 (2004) (trier of fact evaluates evidence and credibility; appellate court will not reweigh witnesses)
- Morgan v. Department of Financial & Professional Regulation, 388 Ill. App. 3d 633 (2009) (director may accept or reject witness testimony in whole or part)
- Ulysse v. Lumpkin, 335 Ill. App. 3d 886 (2002) (appellate review limited to whether findings are against manifest weight of the evidence)
- City of Pekin v. Mann, 44 Ill. App. 3d 1 (1976) (requirements for a certified bystander’s report as a substitute for transcripts)
- In re Marriage of Hofstetter, 102 Ill. App. 3d 392 (1981) (appellate court is not obligated to search the record for error when portions are missing)
- People v. Gerwick, 235 Ill. App. 3d 691 (1992) (bystander’s report must be certified by judge to be considered)
- Landau & Associates, P.C. v. Kennedy, 262 Ill. App. 3d 89 (1994) (attorney affidavits cannot substitute for transcript or certified bystander’s report)