Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01499/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01499-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald J. Grason
Appellant
Jay Stewart
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 31, 2016*

Decided November 1, 2016

Before

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 16‐1499

RONALD J. GRASON,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

JAY STEWART,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 15‐2138

Harold A. Baker,

Judge.

O R D E R

Ronald Grason appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging that Jay Stewart, the director of the Illinois Department of Financial and

Professional Regulation, violated his due process rights by revoking his medical license

without a hearing. We affirm.

                                                 

* We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without oral argument because

the issues have been authoritatively decided. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(B).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 16-1499 Document: 19 Filed: 11/01/2016 Pages: 2
No. 16‐1499    Page 2

This is Grason’s second appeal from lawsuits alleging improper suspension of

his medical activities. See Grason v. Burwell, No. 16‐1462, 2016 WL 4533407 (7th Cir.

Aug. 30, 2016) (non‐precedential) (upholding summary judgment for Secretary of

Health and Human Services in challenge to revocation of his Medicare billing

privileges). In the complaint at issue here, Grason claimed that Stewart denied him due

process by approving the suspension of his license because of unpaid state income taxes

without a hearing. Grason wanted a hearing because he disputed that he owed taxes for

two of the nine years identified by the Department of Financial and Professional

Regulation. But after Grason submitted an order from the Department of Revenue

Board of Appeals denying him relief from the tax liability, an administrative law judge

for the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation struck his request for the

hearing and indefinitely suspended his medical license.  

The district court dismissed the suit because Grason failed to state a claim that

his right to due process was violated. As the court explained, there was no basis for a

hearing once the Department of Revenue concluded that Grason owed taxes because

under those circumstances Illinois law required Stewart to suspend the license.

See 20 ILCS 2105/2105‐15(g).

On appeal Grason maintains that the Department’s decision to suspend his

license without a hearing violated due process. But the district court correctly

concluded that no hearing was warranted: Grason disputed his liability for only 2 out of

the 9 years that the Department of Revenue said he owed taxes, and, as long as taxes

were due, the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation was required by

Illinois law to suspend Grason’s license. See 20 ILCS 2105/2105‐15(g). “[W]hen there is

no factual dispute over a condition with dispositive significance, the state need not

supply a fact‐finding process.” Mid‐Am. Waste Sys., Inc. v. City of Gary, Ind., 49 F.3d 286,

290 (7th Cir. 1995). Moreover, Grason was afforded due process to contest the extent of

his liability through the Department of Revenue proceedings that he pursued at the

Board of Appeals, and which he could have challenged in state court. See 35 ILCS 5/908,

5/1201; 735 ILCS 5/3‐103. He is not constitutionally entitled to have a second hearing

before the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation to pursue the same

arguments. See Crum v. Vincent, 493 F.3d 988, 993 (8th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-1499 Document: 19 Filed: 11/01/2016 Pages: 2