Gonzalez v. National Bd. of Medical Examiners
| Decision Date | 10 August 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-CV-72190-DT.,99-CV-72190-DT. |
| Parties | Michael GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Richard J. Landau, Jeffrey N. Silveri, Dykema Gossett, Ann Arbor, MI, for Michael Gonzales, plaintiff.
Roy C. Hayes, Roy C. Hayes, III, Hayes Law Firm, Charlevoix, MI, for National Board Medical Examiners, defendant.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's Motion For a Preliminary Injunction. Defendant responded and plaintiff replied. This Court held a hearing during which the Court listened to four days of testimony beginning on Monday June 28, 1999. After considering the testimony and the documentary evidence submitted and for the reasons that follow, plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.
Plaintiff Michael Gonzales (hereinafter "Gonzalez" or "plaintiff") filed this complaint under Subsection III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (hereinafter "ADA") after the defendant National Board of Medical Examiners (hereinafter "NBME" or "defendant") twice denied his request for extra time to take Step 1 of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (hereinafter "Step 1 Exam"). Gonzales is a student at the University of Michigan Medical School. Medical school students complete their core classes after two years. In the third year, medical students undertake "rotations" through various medical specialties. In order to continue into the third year of medical school at the University of Michigan, students must pass the Step 1 Exam. Plaintiff successfully completed his first two years of medical school. Plaintiff took the Step 1 Exam twice without accommodation and failed both times.
Plaintiff claims that he has a learning deficiency (Reading Disorder and Disorder of Written Expression) that necessitates additional testing time on the Step 1 Exam. His impairment has been diagnosed by two different clinical psychologists, Dr. Ulrey and Dr. Giordani. Plaintiff sent the diagnoses to the defendant with his request for accommodations. Defendant reviewed the materials, sent them to an outside psychologist for an independent review, and concluded that plaintiff was not disabled under the ADA and therefore not entitled to an accommodation. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction prohibiting the NBME from violating his rights and requiring the NBME to allow Gonzales double time to take the exam.
The Sixth Circuit has identified four factors as being of special importance in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction:
(1) the likelihood of plaintiff's success on the merits; (2) whether the injunction will save the plaintiff from irreparable injury; (3) whether the injunction would harm others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by the injunction.
In re DeLorean Motor Co., 755 F.2d 1223, 1228 (6th Cir.1985) (citations omitted). Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, the four factors are "to be balanced and are not prerequisites that must be satisfied." In re Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., 963 F.2d 855 (6th Cir.1992).
The ADA specifically contemplates that injunctive relief is appropriate to remedy acts of discrimination against persons with disabilities. The ADA incorporates the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3, which states that whenever a person has engaged, or is about to engage, in a prohibited act, a temporary or permanent injunction is an appropriate remedy for the aggrieved party. 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1); see also D'Amico v. New York State Board of Law Examiners, 813 F.Supp. 217 (W.D.N.Y.1993).
Plaintiff brings his lawsuit under Subsection III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter "ADA"). 42 U.S.C. § 12189. Subsection III of the ADA states in pertinent part:
Any person that offers examination ... related to applications, licensing, certification, or credentialing for ... professional, or trade purposes shall offer such examinations ... in a place and manner accessible to persons with disabilities or offer alternative accessible arrangements for such individuals.
42 U.S.C. § 12189.
The purpose of the ADA is not See Price v. National Board of Medical Examiners, 966 F.Supp. 419, 421-22 (S.D.W.V.1997) (quoting Jamie Katz & Janine Valles, The Americans With Disabilities Act and Professional Licensing, 17 MENTAL & PHYSICAL DISABILITY L.REP. 556, 561 (Sept./Oct. 1993).
A person is disabled within the meaning of the ADA if that individual suffers from "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual." 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A). A covered entity discriminates against a disabled individual when it fails to make "reasonable accommodations to known physical or mental limitations." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). Therefore, to succeed on a ADA claim, plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that he is disabled, (2) that his requests for accommodations are reasonable, and (3) that those requests have been denied.
Both parties agree that the ADA applies to the defendant NBME. 42 U.S.C. § 12189. Thus, the principal issue in this case is whether the plaintiff is disabled under the ADA. To determine whether a person has a disability under the ADA, this Court must undertake a two-step analysis. Dutcher v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, 53 F.3d 723, 726 (5th Cir.1995). First, the person must have an impairment. Id. For certain impairments, such as learning disabilities, the impairment may be medically diagnosed by showing a discrepancy between a person's intellectual capabilities and his performance. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the impairment significantly restricts his ability to perform a major life function. Id.
Plaintiff was first diagnosed with a learning impairment in 1994 by Dr. Ulrey while he was an undergraduate student at University of California at Davis. Dr. Ulrey administered a battery of tests and concluded that plaintiff had "verbal and performance skills ranging from the average to the superior." (Plaintiff's Brief in Support of a Preliminary Injunction, p. 4). However, Dr. Ulrey also found that on one examination, plaintiff scored in the 10th percentile on verbal communication, and in the 18th percentile on reading rate. Therefore, Dr. Ulrey concluded that plaintiff had "an underlying learning disability related to slowness in language processing," and that the pattern of errors made by plaintiff on the different examinations "strongly suggests an underlying processing disorder." Id.
In March of 1998, anticipating the completion of his second year of medical school in May, plaintiff requested a test accommodation for the June 1998 Step 1 Exam. Defendant submitted plaintiff's materials to an independent psychologist for review. Upon the recommendation of the independent psychologist, defendant denied plaintiff's request because, according to the NBME, plaintiff did not demonstrate that he was significantly impaired. Plaintiff took the Step 1 Exam in June of 1998 without accommodation and failed to achieve a passing score by four points.
After failing the examination on his first attempt, plaintiff decided to get a second opinion to overcome defendant's concerns that plaintiff lacked the documentation necessary to demonstrate a disability under the ADA. On August 10, 1998, Dr. Bruno Giordani, a psychologist in the Neuropsychology Division of the University of Michigan Hospitals, administered to plaintiff the following assessment procedures through an assistant:
(1) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale — Third Edition
(2) Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement — Revised
(3) Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests — Revised, Form G
(4) Nelson-Denny Reading Test (5) Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery and Allied Procedures
(6) Wechsler Memory Scale — Revised
(7) Test of Variables of Attention
(8) Attentional Capacity Test
(9) Digit Vigilance Test
(10) Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory — 2
(11) Patient History
(12) Interview
Dr. Giordani compared plaintiff's performance to fourth year college students and found that some of his scores were below average to impaired. After analyzing the scores, Dr. Giordani concluded that plaintiff suffered from a Reading Disorder and Disorder of Written Expression. In August of 1998, plaintiff again requested an accommodation from defendant for the October examination and submitted Dr. Giordani's findings. Again, defendant refused. Plaintiff took the October Step 1 Exam without accommodation and again failed to achieve a passing score by four points. Defendant disagrees with Dr. Giordani's analysis and his decision to compare plaintiff's scores with education and age specific norms. Instead, defendant asserts that plaintiff's scores should be compared with a pooled group of individuals who purport to represent the "average" person in society. After comparing plaintiff's scores with pooled norms, defendant argues his test results are in the average to superior range and therefore plaintiff is not disabled under the ADA.
Plaintiff argues that he is disabled under the ADA in his major life activities of reading and learning and that defendant wrongfully denied his request for an accommodation on the Step 1 Exam. As stated above, the ADA requires plaintiff to demonstrate the following: (1) that he is disabled, (2) that his requests for accommodations are reasonable, and (3)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
IN RE ALLEGHANY HEALTH, EDUC. AND RESEARCH FOUND.
...limits" should have a uniform meaning throughout the ADA as well, see Price, 966 F.Supp. at n. 2); Gonzalez v. National Board of Medical Examiners, 60 F.Supp.2d 703, 707-710 (E.D.Mich.1999) (citing to most of the same authorities that were cited in Price), affd, 225 F.3d 620 (6th Cir.2000).......
-
Matthews v. Ncaa
...deficit hyperactivity disorder that substantially affected learning did constitute disability under ADA); Gonzalez v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Examiners, 60 F.Supp.2d 703 (E.D.Mich.1999) (medical student who scored average or superior on tests used to identify and quantify learning deficiencies no......
-
Gonzales v. National Brd. of Medical Examiners
...the district court's recognition of Dr. Giordani as a "competent and accomplished psychologist." Gonzale[s] v. Nat'l Bd. of Medical Examiners, 60 F. Supp. 2d 703, 708 (E.D. Mich. 1999). I would therefore vacate the order of the district court and remand this case for further proceedings. Th......
-
Flora v. County of Hudson
...providing public accommodations, not to public entities), cert. denied, 118 U.S. 1514 (1998); Gonzalez v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Examiners, 60 F. Supp. 2d 703, 707-08 (E.D. Mich. 1999); James v. Peter Pan Transit Management, Inc., 1999 WL 735173, *8 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 1999); Ware v. Wyoming Bd. ......
-
Framing a Ceiling as a Floor: the Changing Definition of Learning Disabilities and the Conflicting Trends in Legislation Affecting Learning Disabled Students
...person"). 113. Price, 966 F. Supp. at 427. 114. 60 F. Supp. 703 (E.D. Mich. 1999). 115. Gonzalez v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 60 F. Supp. 2d 703, 706-07 (E.D. Mich. 1999). 116. Gonzalez, 60 F. Supp. 2d at 708-10. 117. Id. at 708 n.1 (noting no prior history of accommodations in high school......