Shushunov v. Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation
2017 IL App (1st) 151665
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Dr. Sergei Shushunov, an Illinois-licensed physician, pled guilty in Sept. 2012 to attempted armed robbery and aggravated battery arising from a violent domestic incident; he received probation and jail time.
- In March 2013 the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) issued a notice of intent to permanently revoke his medical license under 20 ILCS 2105/2105-165(a)(3) (automatic revocation for conviction of a "forcible felony").
- IDFPR had adopted a regulation (68 Ill. Adm. Code 1130.120, eff. Feb. 1, 2013) defining "forcible felony," listing offenses including aggravated battery, armed robbery, and attempts.
- Shushunov sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging facial and as-applied constitutional defects (procedural and substantive due process), retroactive application of the Regulation, ex post facto and double jeopardy violations, irrebuttable presumption, and bill of attainder.
- The circuit court granted a TRO early on but later dissolved it and dismissed his second amended complaint with prejudice after intervening appellate and supreme-court decisions addressing the statute’s constitutionality.
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal, holding subsection 2105-165(a)(3) and the Regulation constitutional and rejecting Shushunov’s procedural, substantive, retroactivity, ex post facto, and double jeopardy claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process | Shushunov: automatic revocation without an administrative hearing violates due process | IDFPR: conviction is public record; criminal process provided protections; additional hearing is not required; statute allows notice and opportunity to contest triggering event | Court: No procedural due process violation; Mathews factors favor no pre-revocation hearing |
| Substantive due process / overbreadth | Shushunov: automatic, categorical revocation for any forcible felony is overbroad and irrational, especially for non-patient/non-sex offenses | IDFPR: legislature rationally may protect public health/safety by removing licensees convicted of forcible felonies | Court: Not a fundamental right; rational-basis review satisfied; statute is rationally related to public-protection purposes |
| Retroactivity of Regulation defining "forcible felony" | Shushunov: Reg. adopted after his plea was applied retroactively and exceeds Act by including attempts | IDFPR: Reg. implements Act and merely clarifies definition already provided by Criminal Code; application is prospective to license eligibility | Court: Regulation is implementing and prospective; his convictions already qualified as forcible felonies under Criminal Code; no impermissible retroactivity |
| Ex post facto / Double jeopardy / other claims | Shushunov: Reg./Act increase punishment or impose additional punishment after-the-fact; constitute double jeopardy, irrebuttable presumption, bill of attainder | IDFPR: statute is regulatory/civil, not criminal punishment; purpose is public safety; not punitive in Mendoza-Martinez sense; other claims forfeited or unsupported | Court: No ex post facto or double jeopardy violation; civil revocation not punitive equivalent of criminal penalty; remaining claims forfeited or rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayashi v. Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation, 2014 IL 116023 (Ill. 2014) (Illinois Supreme Court: upheld constitutionality of automatic revocation statute and addressed retroactivity)
- Consiglio v. Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation, 2013 IL App (1st) 121142 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013) (appellate decision rejecting similar constitutional challenges to §2105-165)
- Rodrigues v. Quinn, 2013 IL App (1st) 121196 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013) (appellate authority referenced on statutory challenges)
- Abrahamson v. Illinois Department of Professional Regulation, 153 Ill. 2d 76 (Ill. 1992) (due process principles for administrative regulation of professions)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor test for required procedural protections)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (test for retroactive application of statutes)
- Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1963) (factors to determine whether civil sanction is punitive for double jeopardy analysis)
- Bhalerao v. Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulations, 834 F. Supp. 2d 775 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (discussion of weight given to criminal convictions in licensing contexts)