Baugher v. Walker
| Decision Date | 18 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 13925,13925 |
| Citation | 362 N.E.2d 410,5 Ill.Dec. 939,47 Ill.App.3d 573 |
| Parties | , 5 Ill.Dec. 939 Donald BAUGHER and Clark Moreland, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Honorable Dan WALKER, Governor of the State of Illinois, and Ronald E. Stackler, Director, Department of Registration and Education of the State of Illinois, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen. of the State of Illinois, Paul V. Esposito, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, for defendants-appellants.
McClure, McClure & Brannan, Beardstown, for plaintiffs-appellees; Thomas J. Brannan, Beardstown, of counsel.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Cass County and stems from an action instituted by two Illinois licensed pharmacists seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The relevant facts are undisputed.
Pursuant to a voluntary program conducted by the Illinois Department of Public Aid (Public Aid), the State of Illinois reimburses licensed participating pharmacists for prescriptions filled for public assistance recipients. Prior to August 1, 1975, Public Aid applied a reimkbursement formula of $1.35 plus thirty percent of cost of the merchandise. Effective August 1, 1975, the formula was modified and pharmacists began to receive a flat dispensing fee of $1.75 per prescription. As a result of this formula change, a group of Illinois pharmacists had threatened or had begun a group or collective action, in which they refused to fill prescriptions paid by Public Aid. In response to this action, defendant Ronald Stackler, Director of the Department of Registration and Education of the State of Illinois (Department) sent a letter to all Illinois registered pharmacists regarding the boycott. The letter made note of the group action, and further pointed out to those participating in the boycott that section 7.6 of the Pharmacy Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 91, pars. 55.1 Et seq.) prohibits 'gross immorality'. This term was defined in Rule V paragraph 1 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act as 'any willful act or practice hostile to the public health, safety and welfare.'
The plaintiffs, Donald Baugher and Clark Moreland, are licensed Illinois pharmacists practicing in Beardstown and Rushville, Illinois, respectively. On August 15, 1975, they filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in the Circuit Court of Cass County, Illinois. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs participated in Public Aid's voluntary program, but that they were forced to opt out of the program due to the modification of the reimbursement formula. The plaintiffs further alleged that the letter written to them by defendant Stackler threatened license suspension or revocation if the plaintiffs refused to fill prescriptions for public assistance recipients and stated that they would suffer economic loss and violation of their right to property if forced to fill prescriptions for public aid recipients. Furthermore, the plaintiffs contended that the institution of license revocation or suspension proceedings would irreparably injure the plaintiff's reputations in the practice of their profession. On August 15, 1975, after an Ex parte hearing, the trial court entered a temporary restraining order, enjoining the defendants, Dan Walker, then Governor of Illinois, and Ronald Stackler from revoking, suspending or instituting proceedings to revoke or suspend the plaintiffs' licenses to practice pharmacy as a result of their refusal to fill prescriptions for persons which would be paid by Public Aid.
On August 20, 1975, the defendants filed a motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order, deny a preliminary injunction, and dismiss the complaint. This motion stated that the plaintiffs failed to show immediate and irreparable harm, that the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law through the administrative hearing procedure and the Administrative Review Act, and that the plaintiffs' complaint showed on the face that no action had been taken by the defendants against the plaintiffs in this case. The motion further stated that no actual controversy existed between the parties, and therefore a declaratory judgment was improper. On August 22, 1975, the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint which realleged matters contained in the original complaint and added that the defendants had published threatening statements with reference to the prescription reimbursement program, and that these statements constituted threats to illegally use the state's police power. Besides the letter sent by Stackler, no other allegedly threatening statement made by either defendant was incorporated into the amended complaint. The plaintiffs again asked for a temporary restraining order, declaratory relief, and a temporary and permanent injunction.
On August 22, 1975, the trial court issued a supplemental temporary restraining order. Also on August 22, 1975, defendants filed their motion for a stay of the trial court order which was denied on that same date. Later that day, the defendants filed a notice of interlocutory appeal, and on August 29, 1975, this court stayed the trial court's order.
On August 28, 1975, the defendants filed their motion to deny a preliminary injunction and to dismiss the amended complaint which realleged the grounds for dismissal raised in defendants' previous motion. A hearing was held on the defendants' amended motion and the plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings on August 28, 1975. On September 16, 1975, the trial court entered its final order in this case. The court found that the defendants had attempted to illegally coerce the plaintiffs into continued participation in the prescription reimbursement program by means of published statements threatening revocation or suspension of plaintiffs' licenses. The court further found that the institution of license revocation or suspension proceedings would irreparably injure plaintiffs' businesses and reputations. In addition, the court found that plaintiffs did not have an adequate remedy at law, due to the statements made by defendants and due to the fact that the news media would become aware of the institution of proceedings by defendants. The court entered a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs' refusal to fill prescriptions which were paid by Public Aid did not constitute a basis for the suspension or revocation of plaintiffs' licenses. It also enjoined defendants from instituting license suspension or revocation proceedings because of plaintiffs' refusal to fill prescriptions paid by Public Aid.
On October 16, 1975, defendants filed their notice of appeal. Because the question surrounding the issuance of the temporary restraining order merged into the appeal from the final order the defendants moved to dismiss the interlocutory appeal on September 17, 1976.
The letter in controversy states:
'Dear Registered Pharmacist:
'The Department has learned that a small group of pharmacists (approximately 200 around the State) has threatened or actually...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Carey v. Starview Drive-In Theatre, Inc.
...of facts which has not yet arisen or which is future, contingent and uncertain. (Citation.)" Baugher v. Walker (4th Dist. 1977), 47 Ill.App.3d 573, 577-78, 5 Ill.Dec. 939, 362 N.E.2d 410. 4 A reviewing court can take judicial notice of such events or facts which, while not appearing in the ......
-
Thompson v. Medical Licensing Bd.
... ... See Beckanstin v. Bradbury (1958), 214 Ga. 27, 102 S.E.2d 486 (architect's license); Baugher v. Walker (1977), 47 Ill.App.3d 573, 5 Ill.Dec. 939, 362 N.E.2d 410 (pharmacists); Allen v. Louisiana Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control (1962), ... ...
-
Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Ass'n v. State
...even though another remedy is available. See, e.g., Neal v. Brockway, 136 Vt. 119, 385 A.2d 1069 (1978); Baugher v. Walker, 47 Ill.App.3d 573, 5 Ill.Dec. 939, 362 N.E.2d 410 (1977); Schriber Sheet Metal & Roofers v. Shook, 64 Ohio App. 276, 28 N.E.2d 699 (1940); Katz Inv. Co. v. Lynch, 242 ......
-
Distaola v. Department of Registration and Ed.
...establishes the existence of a lawful right, irreparable harm and inadequate remedy at law. (Baugher v. Walker (4th Dist. 1977), 47 Ill.App.3d 573, 577, 5 Ill.Dec. 939, 362 N.E.2d 410; Parsons v. Walker (4th Dist. 1975), 28 Ill.App.3d 517, 521, 328 N.E.2d 920.) Before an injunction may issu......