People ex rel. Goldfarb v. White, Gen. No. 49608

CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtKLUCZYNSKI; MURPHY, P. J., and BURMAN
Citation54 Ill.App.2d 483,203 N.E.2d 599
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Illinois ex rel. Clara A. GOLDFARB, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Sylvester WHITE, Director, Department of Registration and Education of the State of Illinois, and Charles, F. Kervin, Superintendent of Registration, Department of Registration and Education of the State of Illinois, Defendants-Appellants.
Docket NumberGen. No. 49608
Decision Date28 December 1964

Page 599

203 N.E.2d 599
54 Ill.App.2d 483
PEOPLE of the State of Illinois ex rel. Clara A. GOLDFARB,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
William Sylvester WHITE, Director, Department of
Registration and Education of the State of Illinois, and
Charles, F. Kervin, Superintendent of Registration,
Department of Registration and Education of the State of
Illinois, Defendants-Appellants.
Gen. No. 49608.
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division.
Dec. 28, 1964.

[54 Ill.App.2d 484]

Page 600

Ferdinand & Wenig, Chicago, Leonard N. Wenig, Chicago, of counsel, for plaintiff-appellee.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen. of Illinois, Raymond S. Sarnow, Richard Michael, A. Zola Groves, Edward A. Berman, Chicago, of counsel, for defendants-appellants.

KLUCZYNSKI, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court ordering that a writ of mandamus issue directing defendants to certify plaintiff as a person authorized to practice medicine in all its branches in the State of Illinois, without examination, on the basis of the reciprocity provisions of the Medical Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, Ch. 91).

[54 Ill.App.2d 485] From the uncontroverted evidence it appears that petitioner, Clara Goldfarb, on April 20, 1944 became a naturalized United States citizen. She studied medicine at Loyola University at Bologna, Italy, and graduated in 1938. After spending one year doing post graduate work in Vienna, she came to the United States. She worked as a resident physician at the Hospital for Women and Children in New Orleans, and the Brooklyn Women's Hospital in New York, spending about a year and a half at each institution. During this period she served a one year internship at Endicott, New York.

The petitioner subsequently came to Chicago and in 1956 was a resident at Weiss Memorial Hospital. She is presently a resident physician in psychiatry at the Hines Veteran Administration Hospital, a position she has held for the last fifteen months.

Prior to 1961, and while residing in Chicago, Dr. Goldfarb attempted the Illinois examination for licensure to practice medicine in all its branches. Although she passed the clinical aspects, she failed the written examination on nine separate occasions.

In July 1961 petitioner took and passed the Ohio medical examination and in August of that year was licensed by that State. In October 1962 she applied for a medical license in Illinois without examination on the basis of reciprocity with Ohio. In August 1962 the Department noted that the Ohio requirements for license were not substantially equivalent to those in Illinois, as required by the Medical Practice Act, as

Page 601

one of the conditions precedent for issuing a license based on reciprocity (Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, Ch. 91, sec. 14, subd. 3(b)).

The discrepancy in standards was caused by the fact that in Illinois, by department rule V-3, an [54 Ill.App.2d 486] applicant must receive a grade of at least 60 in every subject and an overall average of 75. Ohio, while maintaining the same overall grade requirement of 75, has no minimum standard on any particular subject. In her Ohio examination petitioner received an overall average of 76.5 and received no grade lower than 60 in any one subject.

Upon discovery of the discrepancy in requirements, several applications for medical license based upon reciprocity with Ohio were turned down by the Department. Subsequently, correspondence with Ohio was initiated confirming this discovery, and reciprocity with that State was formally terminated by resolution at the November 6, 1962 meeting of the Medical Examining Committee of the Department.

Later, the action in plaintiff's case was reviewed and by letter dated July 10, 1963 she was advised that her application for a license was denied on two grounds:

'(1) Reciprocity was terminated with the State of Ohio in the matter of medical registration in November 1962, for the reason that the grade requirements for licensure are not equivalent to those in Illinois; and

'(2) A graduate of a foreign medical school under Rule VI, Paragraph 4 of the rules adopted for the administration of the Medical Practice Act is not eligible for reciprocity.'

Plaintiff then filed her action for mandamus.

Defendants contend that plaintiff is barred from seeking to review a decision of the department by mandamus since the sole method provided for such review is by way of the Administrative Review Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, Ch. 110, secs. 264 et seq.). They urge that the judgment order of mandamus be reversed.

[54 Ill.App.2d 487] Section 2 of the Administrative Review Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, Ch. 110, sec. 265) provides:

'This Act shall apply to and govern every action to review judicially a final decision of any administrative agency where the Act creating or conferring power on such agency, by express reference, adopts the provisions of this Act. In all such cases, any other statutory, equitable or common law mode of review of decisions of administrative agencies heretofore available shall not be employed after the effective date hereof.'

As determined by the decisions of the courts of this State, Sec. 2 has been construed to prohibit the use of pre-existing methods of securing judicial review, and where the Administrative Review Act embraces administrative agencies subject to its terms, it becomes the sole means of securing judicial review of decisions of administrative agencies, and eliminates the heretofore conflicting and inadequate common law and statutory remedies.

In Moline Tool Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, 410 Ill. 35, 101 N.E.2d 71 (1951) the Supreme Court held that a proceeding under the Administrative Review Act, and not by the prior method of statutory certiorari, was the proper method of securing review in a taxpayer's challenge of a decision of the Department of Revenue. In discussing the Act, the court, at pages 37-38, 101 N.E.2d at page 73, stated:

'Prior to its enactment, there was diversity and uncertainty in the methods by which judicial review of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Morgan v. Dept. of Fin. & Prof. Regulation, No. 1-06-0266.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 15, 2007
    ...(West 2004). Thus, whether to grant a rehearing is solely within the discretion of the Director. See People ex rel. Goldfarb v. White, 54 Ill.App.2d 483, 490, 203 N.E.2d 599 (1964). Generally, courts should grant a new trial on account of newly discovered evidence where it is apparent or li......
  • Stykel v. City of Freeport, No. 2-99-1446.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • January 22, 2001
    ...the 742 N.E.2d 912 heretofore conflicting and inadequate common-law and statutory remedies. See People ex rel. Goldfarb v. White, 54 Ill. App.2d 483, 487, 203 N.E.2d 599 The purpose of the Review Law has been strictly construed in several recent cases. In Dubin v. Personnel Board, 128 Ill.2......
  • Wabash County v. Ill. Mun. Ret. Fund, No. 2–10–0025.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 28, 2011
    ...419 , 946 N.E.2d 915] Stykel, 318 Ill.App.3d at 845, 252 Ill.Dec. 368, 742 N.E.2d 906 (citing People ex rel. Goldfarb v. White, 54 Ill.App.2d 483, 487, 203 N.E.2d 599 (1964)). Nonetheless, a decision rendered by an administrative agency that lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subjec......
  • People ex rel. Petersen v. Turner Co., No. 75--37
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 15, 1976
    ...the case before us from Peo. ex Page 107 rel. Chi. & N.W. Ry. v. Hulman, 31 Ill.2d 166, 201 N.E.2d 103 (1964) and Goldfarb v. White, 54 Ill.App.2d 483, 203 N.E.2d 599 (1964). It also points out the absence of language similar to that used in the Environmental Protection Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.19......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Morgan v. Dept. of Fin. & Prof. Regulation, No. 1-06-0266.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 15, 2007
    ...(West 2004). Thus, whether to grant a rehearing is solely within the discretion of the Director. See People ex rel. Goldfarb v. White, 54 Ill.App.2d 483, 490, 203 N.E.2d 599 (1964). Generally, courts should grant a new trial on account of newly discovered evidence where it is apparent or li......
  • Stykel v. City of Freeport, No. 2-99-1446.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • January 22, 2001
    ...the 742 N.E.2d 912 heretofore conflicting and inadequate common-law and statutory remedies. See People ex rel. Goldfarb v. White, 54 Ill. App.2d 483, 487, 203 N.E.2d 599 The purpose of the Review Law has been strictly construed in several recent cases. In Dubin v. Personnel Board, 128 Ill.2......
  • Wabash County v. Ill. Mun. Ret. Fund, No. 2–10–0025.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 28, 2011
    ...419 , 946 N.E.2d 915] Stykel, 318 Ill.App.3d at 845, 252 Ill.Dec. 368, 742 N.E.2d 906 (citing People ex rel. Goldfarb v. White, 54 Ill.App.2d 483, 487, 203 N.E.2d 599 (1964)). Nonetheless, a decision rendered by an administrative agency that lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subjec......
  • People ex rel. Petersen v. Turner Co., No. 75--37
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 15, 1976
    ...the case before us from Peo. ex Page 107 rel. Chi. & N.W. Ry. v. Hulman, 31 Ill.2d 166, 201 N.E.2d 103 (1964) and Goldfarb v. White, 54 Ill.App.2d 483, 203 N.E.2d 599 (1964). It also points out the absence of language similar to that used in the Environmental Protection Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.19......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT