Apter v. Richardson, 72 C 3092.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72 C 3092.,72 C 3092. |
| Citation | 361 F. Supp. 1070 |
| Parties | Julia T. APTER, M.D., Ph.D., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Elliot L. RICHARDSON, Secretary of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Charles Barnhill, Jr., James R. Bronner, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
James R. Thompson, U. S. Atty., Michael H. Berman, Asst. U. S. Atty., for defendants.
Plaintiff has filed this complaint seeking injunctive and declaratory relief as a result of allegedly arbitrary and invidious discrimination against her on the part of defendants in their refusal to approve an application for a training grant submitted by Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center for which plaintiff was to be Program Director. She seeks a declaration that certain statutes and administrative regulations followed by defendants with regard to this proposal are unconstitutional and an injunction restraining defendants from continuing to approve applications and disburse funds until new standards for approving such grants have been implemented and all individuals with conflicts of interest have been removed from decision making bodies within the National Institute of Health. Additionally, she seeks reconsideration of the Training Grant initially refused. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a), 1361, 2201 and 5 U.S.C. § 702.
Defendants have moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that: 1) plaintiff lacks standing to prosecute this claim; 2) plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and for summary judgment in their favor should the court deny their motions to dismiss. For the reasons set out below, we will grant the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of standing on the ground that plaintiff has failed to join an indispensable party.
I
The relevant facts for the purposes of this motion may be summarized briefly. Plaintiff, Julia T. Apter, M.D., Ph.D., is currently an attending surgeon at the Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center (the Center) and a professor of surgery at Rush Medical College. On September 28, 1971, the Center submitted an application to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for a training grant. The application was entitled "Training in Research and Development of Biomaterials," and sought funding for a program to provide training and instruction in the discipline of biomaterials as part of an effort to combat diseases of the cardiovascular, urinary and gastrointestinal systems and in the prevention of complications due to surgical procedures. The funding sought was under the auspices of a provision of the Public Health Service Act of July 1, 1944, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 241(d) which authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to:
(d) Make grants-in-aid to universities, hospitals, laboratories, and other public or private institutions, and to individuals for such research or research training projects as are recommended by the National Advisory Health Council . . . . and make, upon recommendation of the National Advisory Health Council, grants-in-aid to public and nonprofit universities, hospitals, laboratories, and other institutions for the general support of their research and research training programs: . . .
The application was referred to the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), a constituent Institute of the NIH, which then assigned it to its Engineering in Biology and Medicine Training Committee. After a visit to the proposed site by two members of this Committee and two additional consultants, and after consideration by the Committee of both the application and the site visit reports, the application was denied on April 3, 1972.
In challenging this denial, plaintiff alleges a great number and variety of improper or unconstitutional procedures and practices on the part of defendants in the processing of the application. We need not detail the substance of these allegations as plaintiff is faced with a preliminary hurdle of showing she is a proper party to bring this suit.
As noted above, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Meeropol v. Nizer
-
Apter v. Richardson
...court held that Dr. Apter was not the applicant for the grant, 1 and therefore lacked standing to bring the action. Apter v. Richardson, 361 F.Supp. 1070 (N.D.Ill.1973). We vacate the dismissal and order reinstatement of plaintiff's In 1971 the Medical Center applied to the NIH for a medica......
- Meeropol v. Nizer, 73 Civ. 2720.