Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ramsay v. National Board of Medical Examiners

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

December 30, 2019

JESSICA RAMSAY, Plaintiff
v.
NATIONAL BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS Defendant

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          JOYNER, JUDGE

         This case has been brought before this Court on Motion of the Plaintiff, Jessica Ramsay, for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 7). Following three full-day evidentiary hearings on December 3, 4, and 5, 2019, the matter is now ripe for disposition and we therefore hereby make the following:

         FINDINGS OF FACT

         1. Plaintiff Jessica Ramsay is a citizen of the State of Michigan residing at 6862 Tall Oaks Drive, Apt. 3B, Kalamazoo, Michigan.

         2. Defendant National Board of Medical Examiners ("NBME") is a non-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the District of Columbia, with its principal place of business at 3750 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

         3. Plaintiff is a medical student in the M.D. program at the Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine of Western Michigan University ("WMed").

         4. NBME develops a series of standardized timed examinations that are known collectively as the United States Medical Licensing Examination ("USMLE") and which are largely in written format. NBME administers these examinations through a third-party-vendor throughout the United States and these examinations are relied upon by states throughout the country in making decisions regarding medical licensure. In order to receive the degree of Doctor of Medicine (i.e. M.D.), to apply and/or be considered for medical residency training programs, and to become licensed as a physician, medical students must first take and pass all of the USMLE "Step" examinations.

         5. Plaintiff was required by Western Michigan Medical School to take and pass the USMLE Step 1 examination at or near the end of her third year of medical school. In addition to being pre-requisite to continuation of their medical school educations, scores on the Step 1 examination are also significant in that they are used by medical residency training programs throughout the United States to rank student candidates in the very-competitive residency match process. Consequently, even if a student passes the Step 1 examination but with a low score, they may be unable to compete or may be significantly hindered in competing for a residency match with the possible result that they are not selected at all for admission to any residency program upon graduation from medical school.

         6. Step 2 of the USMLE consists of two parts: Step 2 CK (Clinical Knowledge) and Step 2 CS (Clinical Skills). These examinations must also be taken and passed by M.D. medical students prior to graduation from medical school.

         7. Step 3 of the USMLE must generally be taken and passed by graduates of M.D. degree programs, prior to licensing as physicians.[1]

         8. Only students of accredited medical schools are eligible to take the USMLE Step examinations.

         9. Plaintiff entered Western Michigan University Medical School in 2014 and had a projected graduation date of May, 2018.

         10. In March 2009, during her sophomore year at Ohio State University, Plaintiff was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Migraine Headaches and probable dyslexia by her family physician, Dr. Alan Smiy. She was prescribed Ritalin to treat the ADHD and granted educational/testing accommodations by and through the University's Office of Disability Services ("ODS"), including additional time to complete examinations (11/2 time), taking examinations in a distraction-reduced space (typically a separate room), use of visual aids such as colored pencils and markers and access to scrap paper, along with access to an ODS counselor throughout the balance of her college career. These and additional accommodations were also granted to Plaintiff by her medical school such that she had up to twice (2X) the time to complete examinations, access to text-to-speech software and calculator during exams, was permitted to have a granola bar or other snack and water with her during testing in her separate exam room, an additional free print allowance, and written examinations on paper (so she could mark them up). Among the examinations for which Plaintiff has received these accommodations during her medical school career are a number of subject matter examinations developed by NBME.

         11. In or around late November/early December, 2016 while a third-year medical student and in anticipation of having to sit for the Step 1 USMLE, Plaintiff applied to NBME for test accommodations, seeking many of the same accommodations that she had been receiving from Western Michigan University Medical School and Ohio State University. Earlier that year, Plaintiff had also suffered a deep vein thrombosis in her leg causing her to miss some three weeks from classes. Plaintiff was subsequently diagnosed with a clotting disorder and prescribed Xarelto. In support of her application for accommodations, Plaintiff provided the supporting documents sought by NBME, including medical and psychological evaluation reports and records, school reports and a Personal Statement describing her impairments and how they affect her current, everyday functioning. Specifically, in addition to her Personal Statement, Plaintiff had provided copies of her school records from St. Joseph's High School, Ohio State University and Western Michigan University Medical School, and records/reports from the following medical/psychological providers and/or evaluators: Dr. Mary Alice Tanguay, Therapeutic Optometrist, Katherine Turner, M.D., Alan N. Smiy, M.D., and Charles A. Livingston, M.A., a Licensed Masters Social Worker and Limited Licensed Psychologist.

         12. NBME did not provide a decision on Plaintiff's request until more than three months later - on or about March 10, 2017. At the time it denied Plaintiff's request for accommodations, NBME stated: "Overall, the documents you provided do not demonstrate a record of chronic and pervasive problems with inattention, impulsivity, behavioral regulation, or distractibility that has substantially impaired your functioning during your development or currently." In reaching this conclusion, NBME noted that "[d]espite your reported history of difficulties, your documentation shows that you progressed through primary and secondary school without grade retention, evaluation, or services and with an academic record and scores on timed standardized tests sufficient to gain admission to college, all without accommodations."

         13. Faced with an NBME requirement that she submit new information as a pre-requisite for reconsideration or an appeal of its denial, Plaintiff took the Step 1 examination in July 2017 without accommodations with the hope that she could pass and enter into her fourth year of medical school. In so doing, Plaintiff was unable to read all of the questions in each testing "block" which required her to guess at the answers to those remaining questions that she did not have time to read. Plaintiff failed the examination by one point.

         14. As a consequence of her failure of the USMLE Step 1 exam and in order to afford Plaintiff the opportunity to take the exam with accommodations, Western Michigan Medical School permitted Plaintiff to take a leave of absence which effectively commenced in August 2017. That leave of absence has been extended several times such that it continues to the present. However, Plaintiff has been advised by the school that no further extensions will be granted and she will be required to withdraw from the medical school if she does not take and pass the Step 1 examination by March 2, 2020.

         15. On June 6, 2018, Plaintiff re-applied to NBME for accommodations on her re-take of the Step 1 USMLE, after having submitted to additional evaluations by Alan Lewandowski, Ph.D., a Neurologist/Clinical Psychologist and Bruce Reukberg, M.D. a psychiatrist, both of whom found that Plaintiff met the DSM-5 and the ICD-10[2] criteria for Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder - Combined Type, and the Specific Learning Disorders of Abnormal Scanning and Processing Speed with Impairments in Reading and Written Expression. In addition to providing these records/reports and all of the other materials that she had previously submitted as well as an updated Personal Statement, Plaintiff also provided letters of support from Jennifer N. Houtman, M.D., her then-primary care physician and her medical school mentor and Clinical Skills course instructor, and David Overton, M.D., the Associate Dean and Chair of the Essential Abilities Committee at Western Michigan University Medical School attesting to Plaintiff's diagnoses of ADHD, Learning Disorders, Migraine Headaches and Clotting Disorder with recent Deep Vein Thrombosis and Post-Thrombotic Syndrome and to her need for accommodations on the Step 1 USMLE.

         16. On September 11, 2018, NBME again found that Plaintiff's "documentation does not demonstrate that 100% additional testing time is an appropriate modification of your USMLE Step 1 administration," reasoning that since Ms. Ramsay's performance on the Conners Continuous Performance Test was normal, she had attained a 3.8 Grade Point Average in high school, an ACT score between 27 and 30 and a 30 M on the MCAT all under standard conditions, the data did not "demonstrate a developmental history of impaired cognitive or academic functioning or that standard testing time is a barrier to your access to the USMLE." Nevertheless, recognizing that Plaintiff's clotting disorder required some accommodation, NBME granted Plaintiff additional break time and testing over two days, a separate testing room to permit her to stand, walk or stretch during the exam and permission to read aloud in that room.

         17. On or about September 25, 2018, Plaintiff consulted Robert D. Smith, Ph.D., another Psychologist/Neuropsychologist and the Michigan Dyslexia Institute for yet another evaluation, this time targeted at her dyslexia in anticipation of an appeal of the NBME's September 11, 2018 denial. Dr. Smith administered a battery of tests, some of which were the same as those which had been previously administered by Dr. Lewandowski and Charles Livingston. At the conclusion of testing, Dr. Smith determined that Plaintiff did indeed have the specific learning disorder of developmental dyslexia which impaired her reading, reading comprehension and severely impaired her reading rate and fluent word recognition. Dr. Smith concluded that "Jessica's pattern of reading and writing scores is typical of the intelligent dyslexic reader who struggles with efficient decoding and processing of the printed words, but can use her intelligence to substantially compensate and extract seemingly adequate comprehension from passages." In also diagnosing Plaintiff with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder - Combined Presentation and finding her level of reading impairment to be severe such that it could be "expected to significantly and substantially interfere with education efforts without accommodations such as extended time," Dr. Smith also recommended a series of testing accommodations including 100% additional time.

         18. Plaintiff thereafter sought reconsideration of the NBME's September 11, 2018 decision by way of an appeal letter sent on her behalf by her attorney, Lawrence Berger, on December 12, 2018. Once again, in reliance on Plaintiff's overall strong academic performance throughout her educational career and on the earlier standardized ACT and MCAT test scores, NBME denied Plaintiff's appeal and her renewed request for the extended testing time accommodation on February 14, 2019.

         19. On March 19, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel sent another letter to the NBME requesting reconsideration of its September 11, 2018 and February 14, 2019 denials. In an email addressed to Plaintiff by NBME's Director of Disability Services and ADA Compliance Officer for Testing Programs, Catherine Farmer, dated March 27, 2019, NBME denied the request for further reconsideration. In the email, Dr. Farmer reiterated that, in view of Plaintiff's "average and above average performances on timed standardized tests taken for the purpose of gaining admission to college and medical school," NBME had concluded that Plaintiff's "skills are better than most people in the general population." NBME made this determination notwithstanding that its evaluator had accepted that Plaintiff's "exceptionally low scores on timed reading tests administered for the purpose requesting test accommodations [was] valid and credible."

         20. In making its decision to deny Plaintiff's requests for accommodations, NBME referred Ms. Ramsay's applications and supporting documentation to two of its outside, independent contractor-evaluators, Steven G. Zecker, Ph.D. and Benjamin J. Lovett, Ph.D. for their opinions. Dr. Zecker is presently an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders at Northwestern University and has been employed by NBME as an outside consultant/evaluator for the past 16 years. Dr. Lovett is now currently an Associate Professor of Psychology and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University[3] and has been employed as an outside consultant/evaluator since 2010. Both Drs. Zecker and Lovett are paid at the rate of $200 per hour for their reviewing services. Drs. Zecker and Lovett reviewed only the written materials submitted by Plaintiff; neither ever interviewed or met her prior to giving their opinions to NBME and to testifying as expert witnesses before this Court.

         21. Prior to the enactment of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, NBME, along with seven other standardized testing organizations[4], sent a letter dated July 14, 2008 to various U.S. Senators opposing the passage of the Act as it was written. Among the "significant concerns" expressed by these organizations were the "significant costs in complying with the ADA," and "the important implications beyond just the substantial costs incurred by testing organizations to provide such accommodations." It was the expressed opinion of the testing organizations that "[t]hese requests [for accommodations] involve, in some way, the very cognitive skills (such as thinking and concentrating) that a standardized exam is attempting to measure," and that "[t]he provision of such accommodations - especially extra testing time - can affect the comparability of the resulting scores and scores achieved under standard testing conditions…. Accommodations can thus undermine the very purpose of a 'standardized' examination" such that they could "also affect the interests of the general public if the exams in question are licensing exams or exams that are taken to gain access to professional schools such as medical school or law school."

         22. Some six years later, in response to the ADA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the drafting of the implementing Regulations by DOJ for the ADA Amendments Act, Defense counsel Robert Burgoyne wrote a lengthy letter on behalf of four standardized testing organizations which he represented, including NBME.[5] In that letter, the four organizations took exception to and opposed, inter alia: (1) the inclusion of the directive that "the primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether entities covered under the ADA have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred, not whether the individual meets the definition of disability" in 28 C.F.R. §36.101(b); (2) the notation that "[t]he question of whether an individual meets the definition of disability under this part should not demand extensive analysis" in 28 C.F.R. §36.101(b) and 28 C.F.R. §36.105(d)(1)(iii); (3) the language that "[s]ubstantially limits is not meant to be a demanding standard" proposed for inclusion in 28 C.F.R. §105(d)(1)(i); (4) the inclusion in the discussion of the proposed rules of examples of "self-mitigating measures or undocumented modifications or accommodations for students with impairments that affect learning, reading, or concentrating" as possibly including "measures such as devoting a far larger portion of the day, weekends and holidays to study than students without disabilities; teaching oneself strategies to facilitate reading connected text or mnemonics to remember facts, receiving extra time to complete tests, receiving modified homework assignments, or being permitted to take exams in a different format or in a less stressful or anxiety-provoking setting. Each of these mitigating measures, whether formal or informal, documented or undocumented, can lessen the impact of, and improve the academic function of a student having to deal with a substantial limitation in a major life activity such as concentrating, reading, speaking, learning, or writing. Nevertheless, these are only temporary supports; the individual still has a substantial limitation in a major life activity and would be a person with a disability under the ADA." In that same letter Mr. Burgoyne, on behalf of the testing organizations asked that DOJ "add a regulation which notes that, although mitigating measures are not to be considered in assessing whether a person has a disability, it is appropriate to consider such measures in determining whether accommodations are needed." He suggested: "The purpose of accommodations is to address an individual's functional limitations. If mitigating measures already address an individual's functional limitations, there is no need for accommodations."

         23. On or about December 5, 2016, Defense counsel Burgoyne gave a power point presentation in the course of a training seminar to NBME's outside consulting reviewers such as Drs. Zecker and Lovett, among others, which was entitled "ADA Legal Update for NBME and its Outside Consultants." In addition to reviewing the relevant provisions of the ADA applicable to entities offering examinations related to licensing and credentialing for secondary or post-secondary education, professional or trade purposes, the presentation included a discussion of the process underlying the Department of Justice's ("DOJ") Title II and Title III Rulemaking. In the course of that discussion, the power point presentation included the following observations on the DOJ's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (dated 1/30/14 and found at 79 Fed. Reg. 483):

• … many ADHD diagnoses may not "meet the clinical definition … and thus would not qualify for an accommodation under the revised definition of disability" (prompting DOJ to reduce its estimate of the # of individuals with ADHD by 30%)
• In response to comments on the proposed rule, DOJ added ADHD as an example of a physical or mental impairment that can constitute a covered disability
• … that, in estimating the cost impact of the new regulations on testing entities and colleges when it published its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, DOJ "had assumed based on some available research that 30 percent of those who self-identify as having ADHD as their primary disability would not need additional testing time because they would not meet the clinical definition of the disability."
• DOJ retreated from that approach in the final rule, because of concerns raised by some commenters
• "One commenter raised concern about presenting a specific percentage of students with ADHD who would not meet that clinical definition, because that number might inadvertently become a benchmark for postsecondary institutions and national testing entities to deny accommodations to a similar percentage of applicants requesting additional exam time because of their ADHD."
• "The Department did not intend for this percentage to establish a benchmark. Covered entities should continue to evaluate requests for additional exam time by all individuals with disabilities on an individualized basis. In direct response to these concerns, the Department has decided not to reduce the number of individuals with ADHD who could now receive testing accommodations as a direct result of the ADA Amendments Act in estimating the financial impact of the new regulations." (emphasis in original)

         DISCUSSION

         On May 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed her Complaint commencing this action alleging violations and seeking relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101, et. Seq. ("ADA") and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794 ("Section 504"). Following the filing of Defendant's Answer to the Complaint, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Preliminary Injunction which is now before us. By this motion, Plaintiff asks this Court to enter an injunction in her favor preliminarily enjoining and restraining NBME and all others acting in concert with it from refusing to grant her the accommodation of 100% extended testing (double) time for the USMLE Step 1 and all subsequent Step USMLE examinations.

         A. Standards for Ruling on Preliminary Injunction Motions

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) outlines the "Contents and Scope of Every Injunction and Restraining Order" by way of the following language:

(1) Contents.
Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order must:
(A) state the reasons why it issued;
(B) state its terms specifically; and
(C) describe in reasonable detail - and not by referring to the complaint or other document - the act or acts restrained or required.
(2) Persons Bound. The order binds only the following who receive actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise:
(A) the parties;
(B) the parties' officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and
(C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B).

         Of course, under Rule 65(a)(1), a preliminary injunction may only issue on notice to the adverse party. “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117 S.Ct. 1865, 1867, 138 L.Ed.2d 162 (1997)(emphasis in original). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). “The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is almost always based on an abbreviated set of facts, requiring a delicate balancing of the probabilities of ultimate success at final hearing with the consequence of immediate irreparable injury.” GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare, L.P. v. Merix Pharmaceutical Corp., No. 05-4566, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 16377, 197 Fed.Appx. 120, 123 (3d Cir. 2006)(quoting U.S. Steel Corp. v. Fraternal Ass'n of Steelhaulers, 431 F.2d 1046, 1048 (3d Cir. 1970)). Indeed, "[i]n each case courts 'must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.'" Winter, 555 U.S. at 24, 129 S.Ct. at 377 (quoting Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987)).

         It should also be noted that in order to make the required showing of irreparable harm, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that he is threatened by a harm “which cannot be redressed by a legal or equitable remedy...” “The preliminary injunction must be the only way of protecting the plaintiff from [the] harm.” Campbell Soup Co. v. ConAgra, Inc., 977 F.2d 86, 91 (3d Cir. 1992)(quoting ECRI v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 809 F.2d 223, 226 (3d Cir. 1987)). Moreover, "a party seeking a mandatory preliminary injunction that will alter the status quo bears a particularly heavy burden in demonstrating its necessity." Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 765 F.3d 205, 219, n. 13 (3d Cir. 2014)((quoting Acierno v. New Castle County, 40 F.3d 645, 653 (3d Cir. 1994); See also, Doe v. Law School Admission Council, Inc., Nos. 17-3230, 17-3357, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32784 at * 10 (3d Cir. Nov. 1, 2019)(same).

         B. Plaintiff's Entitlement to Accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act and/or the Rehabilitation Act

         As stated, Plaintiff here is alleging that NBME violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §12182 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("§504" and/or "RHA"), 29 U.S.C. §794 by failing to grant her repeated requests for accommodations in the taking of Step 1 of the USMLE.[ ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.