Our previews of the newest additions to the civil docket of the Illinois Supreme Court continues this morning with Consiglio v. Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. Consiglio involves a lengthy list of constitutional challenges to amendments the legislature enacted in 2011 to the Department of Professional Regulation Act (20 ILCS 2105/2105-165). According to the new statute, a health care worker’s license is automatically revoked without a hearing when the individual: (1) is convicted of a criminal act automatically requiring registration as a sex offender; (2) is convicted of a criminal battery against any patient committed in the course of care or treatment; (3) has been convicted of a forcible felony; or (4) is required as part of a criminal sentence to register  as a sex offender.

The plaintiffs are three general physicians and one chiropractic physician. Subsequent to being licensed, each was convicted of a battery or abuse against a patient in the course of care or treatment. They filed separate actions in Cook County, seeking a judicial declaration that the Act applied only prospectively to convictions after its effective date and injunctive relief barring revocation of their licenses for convictions occurring before the effective date.   All four complaints were dismissed for failure to state a claim.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the statute: (1) offended substantive and procedural due process; (2) constituted double jeopardy; (3) violated the ex post facto clause; (4) offended the separation of powers clause by abridging the Department’s discretion and the judiciary’s power of review; (5) violated the contracts clause; (6) violated the proportionate penalties clause; (7) was barred by res judicata flowing from previous orders of the Department; and (8) unfairly deprived them of vested limitations and repose defenses.

One by one, Division One of the First District rejected the plaintiffs’ challenges. First, the court found that the plaintiffs conflated two separate issues – whether the Act applied to convictions predating its enactment (which it clearly did) and whether the Act applied retroactively in the constitutional sense (which the court concluded it did not).

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ due process claims. Although the plaintiffs’ licenses were obviously a property interest, since the Act’s remedies only applied upon conviction, the risk of erroneous deprivation was low. On the other hand, the governmental interest at stake was quite high. The court pointed out that the plaintiffs had a post-deprivation challenge available to them – a written appeal disputing the existence of the triggering conviction. Additional procedures would merely add burden without giving much offsetting benefit, the court found.

The court rejected plaintiffs’ double jeopardy argument, finding that the Act did not impose punishment in the constitutional sense. The revocation of a privilege was not generally considered punishment, the court pointed out. The court commented that if the immediate threat to patients were the only purpose, it might agree that the statutory remedy was excessive, but the Act served a further important purpose of protecting public health and maintaining the honesty and integrity of the medical profession. As such, the Act constituted a civil penalty without punitive effect.  The plaintiffs’ ex post facto and proportionate penalties challenges failed as well because the Act was not punitive.

The Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ separation of powers arguments too. The plaintiffs argued that because the Act provided that no hearing was necessary, the statute interfered with judicial review. The court disagreed, pointing out that no hearing was required for due process. Nor did the statute constitute an attempt to legislatively overturn the Department’s previous decisions regarding plaintiffs’ licenses, since the legislature always retains the right to change the law. The court found that the statute passed muster under the contracts clause because the remedies set forth in the Act were reasonable and necessary to serve an important public purpose. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ res judicata challenge, holding that even assuming that Department orders qualified for res judicata effect, the legislature was free to alter the underlying statute at any time.

Finally, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that they had been unfairly deprived of vested statute of limitations defenses pursuant to 225 ILCS 60/22(A) of the Act. The court found as a matter of statutory construction that the statute of limitations applied only to violations of the Medical Practice Act. The legislature intended that no statute of limitations should apply to actions for automatic revocation.

We expect Consiglio to be decided in six to eight months.