Rawdin v. Am. Bd. of Pediatrics (Summary)

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

Rawdin v. Am. Bd. of Pediatrics, No. 13-4544 (3d Cir. Sept. 3, 2014)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision denying a physician’s request for special accommodations on the General Pediatrics Certifying Examination (“Exam”). The physician argued that he was entitled to an alteration of the Exam under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits certain types of discrimination based on a person’s perceived or actual disability.

In 2000, the physician successfully obtained his Pennsylvania medical license and began practicing at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Children’s Hospital requires its physicians to obtain board certification within five years of joining the hospital. The only certifying organization for pediatricians is the American Board of Pediatrics (“ABP”), which uses the Exam as part of its certification procedure. Although the physician had successfully treated over 10,000 patients at Children’s Hospital, he struggled to pass the ABP Exam. The physician suffered from a cognitive disorder that impaired his memory and made multiple choice examinations difficult for him.

After failing the ABP Exam on several occasions, the physician requested that ABP provide him with the following testing accommodations: extended time, a quiet setting, advance knowledge of the subjects on the Exam, access to reference materials, short breaks, and an essay format. ABP denied the physician’s requests for advance knowledge of the test topics and access to reference materials, arguing that this would compromise the validity of the Exam. It also refused to provide an essay format, citing prohibitive expenses.

After failing the Exam for the fifth time, the physician sued ABP for failure to provide reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The trial court ruled against the physician, concluding that there was not enough evidence to show that the physician was entitled to these testing accommodations. In particular, the court highlighted how the physician’s only expert witness had admitted that he knew nothing about the Exam’s questions, layout, or format and had never developed an exam himself. On appeal, the Third Circuit concluded that the district court had not erred in ruling against the physician. The Third Circuit acknowledged the physician’s “impressive clinical talents,” but concluded that neither the evidence nor the law supported his request for testing accommodations.