Abrahamson v. Ill. Dep’t of Fin. and Prof’l Regulation — Dec. 2014 (Summary)

DUE PROCESS – MEDICAL LICENSURE ACTIONS

Abrahamson v. Ill. Dep’t of Fin. and Prof’l Regulation
No. 13-1921 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2014)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a trial court’s decision to dismiss a due process claim against the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (“department”) filed by a physician after the department rejected his application for a medical license for the second time in nearly 20 years.

The physician had first applied for a medical license in 1986 after graduating from medical school, completing three years of surgical residency, and passing his boards. The department denied this initial application after discovering that he had fabricated his medical school transcript and had lied about his academic credentials and his applications for other state licenses. When the physician applied again in 1998, the department denied his application and explained that, at that time, he had insufficient current professional experience upon which it could grant the license. The physician sued and, after protracted litigation, obtained an order from a circuit court instructing the department to assess his capacity to practice medicine and to determine what sort of additional training he would need to obtain a license. Following that review, the department informed the physician that he needed to pass the current medical boards and complete another two years of residency. After unsuccessfully appealing this in the state court system, the physician then filed a due process claim in federal court. The trial court dismissed the claim, reasoning that the physician was really just conducting a “collateral attack” on the state court judicial decisions, concluding that only the Supreme Court of the United States could overturn the state court rulings.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the trial court holding on appeal. It explained that the physician was asking for relief that it could not give, because he was essentially trying to use the federal courts to upset a judgment by the state courts. Consequently, it refused to overturn the lower court’s decision.