A quick one from the Michigan Court of Appeals. Murphy-Dubay v. Dep’t of Licensising and Regulatory Affairs, No. 321380 (Aug. 18, 2015) involved the claims of Mr. Murphy-Dubay, who attended 2 years at a Caribbean medical school, followed by 2 years of clinical rotations in Canada. He returned to Michigan, and passed “Step 3” of the United States Medical Licensing Examination.
But he did not secure a residency, which apparently is a requirement to practice medicine in Michigan. So he sought a “limited license” to practice. When the Department predictably rejected his application because, inter alia, the limited license is for those who are otherwise qualified but who have problems with disciplinary issues (and not for those who do not complete the educational requirements) he sued. His arguments included a takings claim, which asserted that the denial took his property — his “legitimate claim of entitlement” to practice medicine.
No dice, held the court, he merely had an expectation that he could obtain a residency and acquire a full license to practice medicine. This expectation wasn’t a “vested property right,” and thus not a right protected from uncompensated taking.
Pretty straightforward result, right?
Murphy-Dubay v. Dep’t of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, No. 321380 (Mich. App. Aug. 18, 2015)