## Facts

- The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) is a private, not-for-profit professional association governed by bylaws setting standards for membership.
- Dr. Michael R. Treister was a licensed, board-certified orthopaedic surgeon with staff privileges at multiple Chicago hospitals.
- Treister applied for AAOS membership. During an interview, an AAOS representative stated there was adverse information in his file that would result in rejection.
- AAOS refused to let Treister review the file, disclose the nature of the accusations, or identify accusers, and it rejected his application without stating reasons.
- Treister alleged AAOS membership was an important factor in hospital privileges decisions, malpractice insurance rates, court recognition of expert witnesses, and professional selection by clinics and physicians.
- Treister sued seeking declaratory relief that AAOS’s denial without notice of charges, identification of accusers, and a fair hearing violated common-law “fair procedure” protections applicable to private professional associations.
- The trial court denied AAOS’s motion to dismiss the fair-procedure count and ordered AAOS to produce Treister’s membership application file in discovery.
- AAOS took a permissive interlocutory appeal challenging both the refusal to dismiss and the discovery order.

## Issues

1. Whether Illinois common law permits judicial review of a private professional association’s decision to deny an application for initial membership.
2. Whether an applicant must plead facts showing that membership is an economic necessity to trigger judicial intervention and procedural protections.
3. Whether discovery into the association’s confidential membership file is proper when the complaint fails to state a legally reviewable claim.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the fair-procedure count.
- The court held the complaint failed to state a cause of action because it did not allege facts showing AAOS membership was an economic necessity for Treister to practice or earn a livelihood.
- Because the membership denial was not judicially reviewable on the pleadings, the court also reversed the discovery order compelling production of the membership application file.

## Legal Principles

- Courts generally do not interfere in the internal membership decisions of private voluntary associations.
- Judicial review of a private association’s denial of initial membership is unavailable absent a showing that exclusion effectively bars or substantially impairs the applicant’s ability to practice the profession (economic necessity).
- Allegations that membership provides professional advantages or improves reputation, referrals, or opportunities are insufficient without facts showing practical exclusion from the profession.
- When the complaint does not state a legally cognizable basis for judicial review of the membership decision, discovery into the association’s internal evaluative materials is improper.

## Conclusion

The court held that a private professional association’s denial of initial membership is not subject to judicial review unless the applicant pleads facts showing membership is an economic necessity; because Treister remained able to practice with licensure, board certification, and hospital privileges, his complaint was dismissed and the related discovery order was reversed.


Treister v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 78 Ill. App. 3d 746 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1979)