Antitrust: Emergency Medicine Physicians Lack Standing to Bring Antitrust Action against Physician-Certification Organization-Daniel V. American Board of Emergency Medicine1

By Gasper, Sarah | American Journal of Law & Medicine, October 1, 2005 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Antitrust: Emergency Medicine Physicians Lack Standing to Bring Antitrust Action against Physician-Certification Organization-Daniel V. American Board of Emergency Medicine1


Gasper, Sarah, American Journal of Law & Medicine


Antitrust: Emergency Medicine Physicians Lack Standing to Bring Antitrust Action Against Physician-Certification Organization-Daniel v. American Board of Emergency Medicine, 2005 WL 24705430 (2d Cir. Oct. 7, 2005).

Expert Testimony: Expert Witnesses Must be Prepared to Produce Positive Evidence to Establish General Causation in Drug Products Liability Actions-Ruggiero v. Warner-Lambert Co., 424 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 2005).

Antitrust: Emergency Medicine Physicians Lack Standing to Bring Antitrust Action Against Physician-Certification Organization-Daniel v. American Board of Emergency Medicine1-Emergency medicine doctors brought suit against a medical specialty certification board for emergency medicine and hospitals operating residency programs in emergency medicine, alleging that the defendants conspired to unreasonably restrict competition in the market for emergency medicine physicians.2 After establishing that the Clayton Act's3 worldwide service of process provision only applies for cases that satisfy the venue provision, which was not satisfied here, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs did not have antitrust standing.4 In so ruling, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims.5

The defendants in this case were the American Board of Emergency Medicine ("ABEM"), the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors ("CORD"), and various hospitals.6 ABEM is a Michigan not-for-profit corporation that certifies physicians in emergency medicine.7 All of its daily activities take place in East Lansing, Michigan, where its offices, records and staff are located.8 ABEM is a member of the American Board of Medical Specialties, and is one of twenty-four medical certification boards.9 ABEM establishes educational criteria for emergency medicine and certifies physicians who pass their examination.10 An ABEM certification is not required to practice emergency medicine in any state.11

In 1976, when ABEM first sought to become a specialty board, only thirty emergency medicine residency programs existed in the U.S.12 In order to increase recognition of the specialty, ABEM proposed two eligibility tracks for applicants seeking to take the certification exam: (1) the practice track, requiring 7,000 hours and 60 months of practicing or teaching emergency medicine; and (2) the residency track, requiring completion of an approved residency training program.13 ABEM specifically limited the practice track as an eligibility alternative for the first eight years, from 1980-1988, because it expected additional residency training programs to develop over time, thus making the residency track a practical requirement.14

CORD, another Michigan not-for-profit corporation, is a national association that facilitates communication among the directors of emergency residency training programs.15 The defendant hospitals originally included twenty-eight hospitals that hire ABEM-certified doctors and operate residency training programs, but only nine remained in this action.16 None of these defendant hospitals are incorporated in New York or maintain their principal place of business in New York.17

Dr. Gregory Daniel and 175 other named plaintiffs, along with approximately 14,000 members of the proposed plaintiff class were physicians who currently practice or who have practiced emergency medicine and who would be eligible to take the ABEM exam if the practice track still existed.18 Plaintiffs alleged that by closing the practice track and placing a premium on ABEM certification, ABEM, CORD, numerous hospitals, and various individuals associated with these organizations unlawfully restrained trade and monopolized the market for ABEM-certified and ABEM-eligible physicians.19 Specifically, plaintiffs argued that the defendants conspired to limit the pool of eligible applicants, thus creating an artificial shortage of ABEM-certified and ABEM-eligible physicians, with the end goal of demanding super-competitive pay.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Antitrust: Emergency Medicine Physicians Lack Standing to Bring Antitrust Action against Physician-Certification Organization-Daniel V. American Board of Emergency Medicine1
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?