Three v. The Department of Public Health
81 N.E.3d 523
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff John Doe Three petitioned the Illinois Department of Public Health to add "chronic post-operative pain" (CPOP) as a "debilitating medical condition" under the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act; his petition included physician support and medical literature.
- An Advisory Board hearing resulted in a 7–3 recommendation to approve the petition, but Director Nirav D. Shah denied it, citing lack of "substantial evidence from adequate, well-controlled clinical trials," and added articles to the record that were not presented at the hearing.
- Plaintiff sought judicial review under the Administrative Review Law; the circuit court reversed the Director for using outside evidence and an improper standard, remanding for a new decision.
- After the circuit court’s ruling, the General Assembly and the Department adopted amendments changing petition procedures (limiting petitions to an annual one-month window, disbanding/reconstituting the Advisory Board, and altering the review process).
- The circuit court later amended its order directing the Director to add CPOP by rule; this appeal followed and the appellate court stayed enforcement of the amended order.
- The appellate court affirmed in part (reversing the Director’s decision) but reversed the portion ordering the Director to add CPOP within 30 days, and remanded for reconsideration under the pre-amendment statute and rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to review the Director’s decision | Section 45 permits judicial review and the Act (via §155) expressly adopts the Administrative Review Law | Section 45 doesn’t expressly adopt the Review Law; other Act sections show express adoption is required | Court held jurisdiction exists: §155 expressly adopts the Review Law for all final Department decisions, so circuit court had jurisdiction |
| Whether the Director’s denial was valid given procedures and evidence considered | Director violated Department rules and due process by relying on outside evidence and an unspecified, heightened clinical-trial standard | Director relied on clinical literature and exercised discretion to require robust trial evidence for safety/efficacy | Court held Director applied the wrong standard and considered extra-record evidence; decision was invalid and reversal was warranted |
| Standard of review for Director’s mixed question of law and fact | Plaintiff contended Director’s procedural errors and misapplication of standards required reversal | Defendants argued decision was quasi-legislative and not arbitrary or capricious | Court applied the "clearly erroneous" standard for mixed questions, finding the Director’s error required reversal and remand |
| Whether post-decision statutory and rule amendments apply retroactively on remand | Plaintiff argued pre-amendment rules should govern because amendments are substantive and not retroactive | Defendants argued amendments were procedural and should apply on remand | Court held amendments were substantive (changed petition timing, removed hearing requirement, altered Board role) and thus not retroactive; remand must follow pre-amendment Act/rules |
Key Cases Cited
- AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (review standard for mixed questions of law and fact)
- Violette v. Department of Healthcare & Family Services, 388 Ill. App. 3d 1108 (agency applying wrong standard requires remand)
- Lombard Pub. Facilities Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 378 Ill. App. 3d 921 (discussion of deference and review standards)
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Will County Collector, 196 Ill. 2d 27 (retroactivity framework and legislative indication)
- People v. Glisson, 202 Ill. 2d 499 (procedural vs. substantive amendment analysis)