Vasanwala v. The Division of Professional Regulation of the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation ( 2023 )

NOTICE 2023 IL App (4th) 220933-UThis Order was filed under
FILED
NO. 4-22-0933 December 4, 2023
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
Carla Bender
not precedent except in the
IN THE APPELLATE COURT 4th District Appellate
limited circumstances allowed Court, IL
under Rule 23(e)(1).
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
RIKHAV VASANWALA, M.D., ) Appeal from the
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Circuit Court of
v. ) Sangamon County
THE DIVISION OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION ) No. 22MR403
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL AND )
PROFESSIONAL REGULATION and CECILIA ) Honorable
ABUNDIS, in Her Official Capacity as Director of the ) Robin L. Schmidt,
Division of Professional Regulation, ) Judge Presiding.
Defendants-Appellees. )
PRESIDING JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Steigmann and Knecht concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, finding the circuit court properly dismissed
plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there was no
final administrative decision for the court to review.
¶2 Plaintiff, Rikhav Vasanwala, M.D., appeals from the circuit court’s judgment,
dismissing his complaint for administrative review against defendants, the Division of
Professional Regulation of the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation
(Department) and Cecilia Abundis, in her official capacity as Director of the Division of
Professional Regulation (Director). On appeal, plaintiff argues he was denied due process when
the Director temporarily suspended his medical license without a hearing under section 37(d) of
the Medical Practice Act of 1987 (Medical Act) (225 ILCS 60/37(d) (West 2022)). He further
contends the Director’s order temporarily suspending his medical license pending further
proceedings was a final administrative decision, and the court erroneously dismissed his
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On September 13, 2022, the Department filed an administrative complaint,
alleging discipline of plaintiff’s Illinois medical license was appropriate under section 22 of the
Medical Act (225 ILCS 60/22 (West 2022)) after he was arrested for “(i) Rape, a class Y felony,
and (ii) Video Voyeurism, a class D Felony,” in Benton County, Arkansas. The Department also
simultaneously filed a petition to temporarily suspend plaintiff’s medical license pending a
formal hearing on its complaint.
¶5 The Department’s filings alleged the following. On January 31, 2022, while at his
residence in Arkansas, plaintiff videotaped himself performing multiple acts of oral, anal, and
vaginal penetration against “AV.” Because “she was unconscious” and “her body was limp,”
plaintiff “had to manually spread AV’s legs apart,” remove her clothing, and “move [her] body
into different positions as he was performing sexual acts on her.” On February 17, 2022, plaintiff
obtained his Illinois medical license. On February 23, 2022, plaintiff was arrested in Arkansas
after “AV reported [the] aforementioned sexual assault,” and plaintiff stipulated that probable
cause existed for both the rape and voyeurism charges.
¶6 The Department supported its allegations with an affidavit from Dr. Shami Goyal,
the Department’s chief medical coordinator, who reviewed the information obtained by the
Department, as well as various documents from the criminal matter in Arkansas. Dr. Goyal also
watched the video of plaintiff molesting “AV” while she was unconscious and opined “that the
continued practice of medicine by [plaintiff] presents an immediate danger to the safety of the
-2-
public in *** Illinois.” The Director thereafter found the public interest, safety, and welfare
imperatively required emergency action to prevent plaintiff’s continued practice of medicine, “in
that [plaintiff]’s actions constitute[d] an immediate danger to the public.” The Director
temporarily suspended plaintiff’s Illinois license pending a formal hearing on the complaint,
which was scheduled in nine days.
¶7 On September 21, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion to limit the hearing’s purpose “to
the issue of whether [plaintiff] constitutes an immediate danger to the public to justify the
summary suspension.” The formal administrative hearing on the Department’s complaint against
plaintiff was held the next day. At the hearing, plaintiff asserted he had not been given an
opportunity to argue whether the requirements for a temporary suspension were met, and “it
[made] logical sense that the hearing would not be on the complaint, but would be on whether
the temporary suspension is proper.” After reviewing the relevant provisions under Title 68 of
the Illinois Administrative Code (68 Ill. Adm. Code 1110), covering the Department’s rules of
practice in administrative hearings, and the Medical Act, the administrative law judge (ALJ)
denied plaintiff’s motion. In doing so, the ALJ noted she lacked a legal basis to grant plaintiff’s
motion because there existed no authority which would allow her to review the Director’s
finding or limit the hearing.
¶8 On September 26, 2022, plaintiff filed the instant complaint for administrative
review. In his complaint, plaintiff asserted, among other things, defendants “violated [his]
procedural rights by refusing to grant him a hearing on the Temporary Suspension Order and
refusing to grant him any right to contest the Temporary Suspension Order in any way.” Plaintiff
further noted the temporary suspension of his medical license would “stay in place until there is a
-3-
final decision on the [Department’s] Complaint in this case,” which, plaintiff complained, “could
take months or even up to a year.”
¶9 On October 3, 2022, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint
under section 2-619(a)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Civil Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(1)
(West 2022)). The motion asserted the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to address
plaintiff’s complaint because (1) the order temporarily suspending plaintiff’s medical license was
not a final administrative decision and (2) plaintiff had failed to exhaust all of his available
administrative remedies. In so arguing, defendants highlighted plaintiff’s own admission
administrative proceedings were ongoing. Defendants explained the General Assembly adopted
the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2022)) as the exclusive method
for reviewing final administrative decisions under the Medical Act. Defendants also pointed out,
under section 3-101 of the Administrative Review Law, the term “administrative decision” was
defined as “any decision, order or determination of any administrative agency rendered in a
particular case, which affects the legal rights, duties or privileges of parties and which terminates
the proceedings before the administrative agency.” 735 ILCS 5/3-101 (West 2022).
¶ 10 In response, plaintiff argued “there [were] no remaining administrative procedures
that exist as to the suspension” because defendants “refused to allow [him] any opportunity to
contest the suspension.” Plaintiff also claimed although “the term of the [temporary] suspension
[would] end upon a decision on the Administrative Complaint,” the decision would not “review
or reverse the suspension currently in effect.” Thus, according to plaintiff, the order temporarily
suspending his medical license was a final administrative decision because it was “an order of an
administrative agency” which affected his legal rights and privileges as a physician and disposed
of all proceedings to contest the suspension.
-4-
¶ 11 Following a hearing on October 4, 2022, the circuit court entered a written order
dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the order
temporarily suspending plaintiff’s medical license because it was not a final administrative
decision.
¶ 12 This appeal followed.
¶ 13 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 14 On appeal, plaintiff argues he was denied due process when the Director
temporarily suspended his medical license without a hearing under section 37(d) of the Medical
Act (225 ILCS 60/37(d) (West 2022)). He further contends the order temporarily suspending his
medical license pending a formal hearing on the Department’s complaint was a “final
administrative decision,” and the circuit court erroneously dismissed his complaint for
administrative review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants assert the court properly
dismissed plaintiff’s complaint under section 2-619(a)(1) of the Civil Code, which provides for
the dismissal of a claim where “the court does not have jurisdiction of the subject matter of the
action.” 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(1) (West 2022). This court reviews dismissals under section 2-619
de novo. Dawkins v. Fitness International, LLC, 2022 IL 127561, ¶ 24, 210 N.E.3d 1184.
¶ 15 In cases involving review of an administrative decision, circuit courts exercise
“special statutory jurisdiction.” Ameren Transmission Co. of Illinois v. Hutchings, 2018 IL
122973, ¶ 13, 120 N.E.3d 998. When the governing statute adopts the Administrative Review
Law, “a circuit court may not redress a party’s grievance through any other type of action”
(Goral v. Dart, 2020 IL 125085, ¶ 40, 181 N.E.3d 736), and a party seeking to invoke that
jurisdiction must “comply strictly with the procedures prescribed by the statute.” Ameren
Transmission Co. of Illinois, 2018 IL 122973, ¶ 13. The Medical Act adopts the Administrative
-5-
Review Law and provides, “All final administrative decisions of the Department are subject to
judicial review.” 225 ILCS 60/41 (West 2022). “Under the Administrative Review Law, courts
may only judicially review an administrative decision that both (1) ‘affects the legal rights,
duties or privileges of parties,’ and (2) ‘terminates the proceedings before the administrative
agency.’ ” Sherman West Court v. Arnold, 407 Ill. App. 3d 748, 750, 944 N.E.2d 467, 469
(2011) (quoting 735 ILCS 5/3-101 (West 2008)). If those procedures are not followed, the circuit
court lacks jurisdiction. Slepicka v. Illinois Department of Public Health, 2014 IL 116927, ¶ 34,
21 N.E.3d 368.
¶ 16 When a complaint is filed under section 22 of the Medical Act, the Department is
responsible for investigating the actions of a licensee. 225 ILCS 60/36(a) (West 2022).
Typically, the Department must notify the licensee of any charges as well as the time and place
for a hearing on the charges at least 30 days prior to the date set for the hearing before taking any
disciplinary action. 225 ILCS 60/36(b) (West 2022); 68 Ill. Adm. Code 1110.170(a) (2019). At
the time and place determined in the notice, the ALJ “shall proceed to hear the charges,” and the
licensee “shall be accorded ample opportunity to present *** such statements, testimony,
evidence and argument as may be pertinent to the charges or to any defense thereto.” 225 ILCS
60/37(a) (West 2022).
¶ 17 However, the Director, with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the
Department, may temporarily suspend a licensee’s medical license without a hearing if the
Director finds, based on the evidence possessed, that the licensee’s continued medical practice
presents an immediate danger to the public. 225 ILCS 60/37(d) (West 2022); 68 Ill. Adm. Code
1110.10 (2019). This depends on the temporary suspension being sought simultaneously with the
institution of proceedings for a hearing under section 37 of the Medical Act. 225 ILCS 60/37(d)
-6-
(West 2022). In the event the Director temporarily suspends a licensee’s medical license, the
disciplinary proceedings are accelerated, and a hearing on the charges against the licensee must
be held within 15 days of the temporary suspension taking effect. 225 ILCS 60/37(d) (West
2022); Sharma v. Division of Professional Regulation of Financial & Professional Regulation,
2023 IL App (3d) 220095, ¶ 23, 219 N.E.3d 707 (concluding the 15-day hearing requirement
following a temporary suspension relates to the underlying complaint).
¶ 18 After the hearing, the ALJ must submit a written report to the Illinois State
Medical Board (Medical Board) containing his or her findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
any disciplinary recommendation with respect to the allegations contained in the complaint. 225
ILCS 60/35 (West 2022); 68 Ill. Adm. Code. 1110.240(a)-(b) (2019). Upon receipt of the ALJ’s
report, the Medical Board must submit its own conclusions and recommendations to the
Director. 225 ILCS 60/35 (West 2022); 68 Ill. Adm. Code 1110.240(c) (2019). Once the Medical
Board submits its findings to the Director, the parties are sent a copy of the report and are given
an opportunity to request a rehearing. 68 Ill. Adm. Code 1110.240(c) (2019). When the time to
file a motion for rehearing expires, the Director may adopt the recommendations of the Medical
Board and enter a decision. 225 ILCS 60/40(b) (West 2022); 68 Ill. Adm. Code 1110.240(f)
(2019).
¶ 19 In light of these principles, the record clearly establishes the order temporarily
suspending plaintiff’s medical license was not a final administrative decision and not subject to
judicial review because it did not terminate the proceedings before the Department. Simply
calling it a “final administrative decision” does not make it functionally so. See Marsh v. Illinois
Racing Board, 179 Ill. 2d 488, 491, 689 N.E.2d 1113, 1115 (1997) (“An apple calling itself an
orange remains an apple.”). The fact remains plaintiff admitted in his complaint that there had
-7-
been no “final decision *** in this case,” and he received a hearing on the charges against him
nine days after the Director temporarily suspended his license—the only hearing to which he was
entitled. 225 ILCS 60/37(d) (West 2022); see Sharma, 2023 IL App (3d) 220095, ¶ 23.
Moreover, the record is bereft of any written findings of fact, conclusions of law, or disciplinary
recommendation by either the ALJ or Medical Board. 225 ILCS 60/35 (West 2022); 68 Ill. Adm.
Code 1110.240(a)-(c) (2019). And, at the time the circuit court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint
for administrative review, no decision had been entered by the Director adopting or rejecting the
recommendation of the Medical Board. 225 ILCS 60/40(b) (West 2022); 68 Ill. Adm. Code
1110.240(f) (2019).
¶ 20 Accordingly, because there was no final administrative decision for the circuit
court to review, the court properly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. See
Sherman West Court, 407 Ill. App. 3d at 750. Having affirmed the court’s decision on this basis,
we need not determine if the Director’s decision to temporarily suspend plaintiff’s medical
license without a hearing violated plaintiff’s due process rights as plaintiff contends.
¶ 21 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 22 For all these reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.
¶ 23 Affirmed.
-8-