Rawdin v. Am. Bd. of Pediatrics

Decision Date06 November 2013
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 12–6781.
Citation985 F.Supp.2d 636
PartiesDavid E. RAWDIN, M.D. v. The AMERICAN BOARD OF PEDIATRICS.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Robert F. Morris, Joshua J. Knepp, Morris Clemm & Heleniak, PC, Plymouth Meeting, PA, for David E. Rawdin, M.D.

Christopher B. Sullivan, Douglas P. Farr, Wesley D. Felix, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Salt Lake City, UT, Jeffrey P. Bates, Samantha Lynn Kane, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Philadelphia, PA, for The American Board of Pediatrics.

MEMORANDUM

JUAN R. SÁNCHEZ, District Judge.

Plaintiff David Rawdin, M.D., is a skilled pediatrician who has been unable to obtain board certification from the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP or “the board”). Although Dr. Rawdin is, by all accounts, an excellent pediatrician, he has been unable to pass the multiple choice exam ABP uses to evaluate all candidates for certification in any of his five attempts to do so. Dr. Rawdin contends he suffers from a disability—a memory deficiency—caused by a brain tumor and the subsequent treatment he received. He brings this action against ABP to accommodate his disability by either awarding him board certification without requiring him to pass the multiple choice exam or providing him with an alternative form of testing. The Court is sympathetic to Dr. Rawdin's position and agrees he suffers from a memory impairment. After holding a preliminary injunction hearing, which was consolidated with a trial on the merits, and upon review of the relevant case law, however, the Court concludes Dr. Rawdin is not disabled within the meaning of the ADA and is therefore not entitled to the accommodations he seeks. In addition, the Court concludes that even if Dr. Rawdin had a disability within the meaning of the Statute, his requested accommodations are not reasonable and would fundamentally alter ABP's exam and place an undue burden on ABP. As a result, the Court is constrained to deny Dr. Rawdin's request for relief. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 52(a), the Court issues the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. ABP is an independent, non-profit organization, and is one of 24 certifying boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). Board certification is recognized as a credential signifying a high level of physician competence. ABP's mission is to certify pediatricians against a series of qualifying standards so as to assure the public that certified physicians have demonstrated a high level of competency.

2. One of the benchmarks for certification requires passing a multiple choice exam. Throughout its 80–year existence, ABP has always required candidates to pass an exam prior to certification.

3. In the pediatric field, board certification is a critical mark of professional medical competence. Board certification is a factor used by the public in selecting a physician and by hospitals and private practices in deciding whether to hire a physician. A pediatrician is not, however, required to be board certified in order to practice, and approximately 15–20% of pediatricians are not board certified.

4. Dr. Rawdin is a licensed pediatrician who has been unable to pass ABP's multiple choice exam and obtain board certification. In 1987, while in college, Dr. Rawdin was diagnosed with Posterior Fossa Ependymoma, a type of brain tumor. He underwent brain surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy to treat the tumor. Dr. Rawdin began to experience difficulty taking multiple choice examinations after surgery and treatment. Despite these difficulties,Dr. Rawdin graduated from Franklin & Marshall College in 1990 and began attending Temple University School of Medicine. He graduated from medical school in 1994.

5. To become a licensed physician, a medical student must pass the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE). This exam consists of three “Steps,” each of which includes multiple choice questions. Dr. Rawdin completed the first two Steps in medical school. After medical school, Dr. Rawdin took Step III of the USMLE but failed it twice. Following his second failed attempt in 1996, Dr. Rawdin was evaluated by a neuropsychologist, Laura Slap–Shelton, Psy.D. Dr. Slap–Shelton concluded that as a result of his brain tumor and subsequent surgical resection, chemotherapy, and radiation, Dr. Rawdin had sustained a cognitive impairment impacting his memory retrieval system. Specifically, Dr. Slap–Shelton determined Dr. Rawdin's verbal retrieval function, visual memory system, and visual fine motor function were all significantly impaired by the tumor and subsequent treatment, but these impairments were only apparent when Dr. Rawdin took multiple choice examinations. Dr. Slap–Shelton found, however, that Dr. Rawdin's impairments did not impact his clinical ability to practice medicine.

6. During the second year of his general surgery residency at the Graduate Hospital in Philadelphia, Dr. Rawdin's tumor recurred, requiring further surgery and treatment. Because Dr. Rawdin suffered a series of complications after surgery, he left the medical profession for four years and changed residencies, leaving the more demanding surgical specialty for pediatrics.

7. Dr. Rawdin returned to medicine in 1999, applied to take Step III of the USMLE for the third time, and for the first time requested accommodations. His request was granted, and he was provided double time to take the exam, an individual testing room, and additional “off the clock” breaks. Dr. Rawdin passed Step III of the USMLE on this third attempt and earned a Pennsylvania medical license in 2000. After passing the USMLE, Dr. Rawdin entered the general pediatric residency program at Albert Einstein Medical Center, which he completed without any reprimands or poor evaluations. His only struggles were with the mock board exams intended to prepare the residents for their board certification exam.

8. In July 2003, Dr. Rawdin began clinical practice as a pediatrician in the Neonatology Department of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP). He became the Assistant Director of CHOP's nursery, held a faculty post, and was part of the Academic Clinician Tract at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. Dr. Rawdin worked at CHOP until his termination in 2010.

9. Dr. Rawdin's performance during his years at CHOP was exemplary, as reflected by the credible testimony of Dr. William Fox, the Director of the Newborn Infant Breathing Disorder Center at CHOP, who worked with Dr. Rawdin when Rawdin served as Assistant Director of the well-baby nursery. Dr. Fox never observed Dr. Rawdin having any difficulties with the functions of his position or with his diagnostic abilities, stating “I never heard any question about Dr. Rawdin's abilities, or his diagnostic abilities, or patient management abilities in the whole time he was there, which I think was about five years.” Hr'g Tr. 35, July 29, 2013, ECF No. 38. Dr. Fox also never observed any shortcomings in Dr. Rawdin's pediatric knowledge. Dr. Rawdin treated 10,000 babies during his six and half years at CHOP. He was never reprimanded, never underwent a peer review as a result an incident that occurred on his watch, and there were no medical malpractice claims against him or the hospital as the result of the treatment of any baby under his care.

10. Under CHOP's bylaws, physicians employed by the hospital must be board certified in their specialties within five years of employment. Because Dr. Rawdin was not able to obtain certification, CHOP terminated his employment in January 2010.

11. ABP is the sole organization responsible for certifying physicians as specialists in the field of pediatrics. To obtain board certification, a physician must: (1) graduate from a medical school accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or the American Osteopathic Association; (2) complete three years of pediatric training in programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education on the advice of the Review Committee for Pediatrics; (3) possess a valid, unrestricted license to practice medicine in at least one state or territory in the United States; (4) pass a peer and patient review; and (5) pass a multiple choice exam known as the General Pediatrics Certifying Examination (the Exam). The Exam is given once a year and is computer-based, consisting of four sections with a total of 335 multiple choice questions. These questions are cue—or story-based and contextual, providing the test-taker with a scenario and asking for the most likely diagnosis, treatment, or next step. Each question provides five possible answers and is designed to have one correct answer. The questions are intended to test knowledge, not memory. ABP has sole control over the planning, administration, and scoring of the Exam.

12. Dr. Rawdin meets all of the requirements for board certification except for passing the Exam, which he has taken five times (in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2011) and failed each time. Without live performance, enabling him to talk to the actual patient or parent of the patient, ask questions, and see his or her reactions, Dr. Rawdin is not able to answer the questions correctly because he feels he lacks all of the necessary information.

13. In October 2007, following his second failed attempt to pass the Exam, Dr. Rawdin was reevaluated by Dr. Slap–Shelton, who performed a new psychological evaluation. As part of the evaluation, Dr. Slap–Shelton gave Dr. Rawdin a number of tests, including an intelligence test, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–III (WAIS–III); an academic achievement test, the Woodcock Johnson–III Tests of Achievement (WJ–III ACH); a series of neuropsychological tests; 1 and personality and behavior tests. Dr. Rawdin's scores placed him into the superior range or high average range on most of the tests. His verbal IQ placed him in the 98th percentile for overall...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Frilando v. Bordentown Driver Training Sch., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 27 Julio 2017
    ...but could be spread among or passed on to other parties, accommodation was not an undue burden); cf., e.g., Rawdin v. Am. Bd. of Pediatrics, 985 F. Supp. 2d 636, 656 (E.D. Pa. 2013) (cost of developing new board exam to accommodate plaintiff's disability would impose undue burden where tria......
  • Ramsay v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Examiners, CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-CV-2002
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 30 Diciembre 2019
    ...(2) that her requests for accommodation are reasonable; and (3) that those requests have been denied. Rawdin v. American Board of Pediatrics, 985 F. Supp. 2d 636, 647 (E.D. Pa. 2013); Mahmood v. National Board of Medical Examiners, No. 12-1544, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86837, 2012 WL 2368462 a......
  • Marsh v. Union R.R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • 12 Septiembre 2022
    ...an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.'” Rawdin v. Am. Bd. of Pediatrics, 985 F.Supp.2d 636, 649 (E.D. Pa. 2013), aff'd, 582 Fed.Appx. 114 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii)). Furthermore, it is “an axiom of any......
  • Krpan v. Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 8 Marzo 2016
    ...when considered in light of a number of factors, including the type of service or product being offered.” Rawdin v. Am. Bd. of Pediatrics, 985 F.Supp.2d 636, 656 (E.D.Pa.2013) (citing Powell v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 364 F.3d 79, 88 (2d Cir.2004) ). The budget and size of the entity, ty......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter § 3-11 § 1630.11. Administration of Tests
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Maslanka's Texas Field Guide to Employment Law Title Chapter 3 The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
    • Invalid date
    ...employees may sue). An interesting case reviewing the amendments in this context follows: • Rawdin v. American Bd. of Pediatrics, 985 F. Supp. 2d 636 (E.D. Pa. 2013) (court holds that plaintiff has a memory impairment that affects his ability to take tests; the question then becomes whether......
1 provisions

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