A federal judge has tossed a class action lawsuit accusing the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology of allegedly using its monopoly over certifications used by psychiatrists to advance their careers and obtain insurance to allegedly force psychiatrists to pay to participate in programs needed to maintain their certification.
The plaintiffs, both identified as licensed psychiatrists, filed suit in 2019 against the ABPN. The lawsuit accuses the Deerfield-based ABPN of allegedly improperly "tying" their certification to a recently introduced fee-based maintenance program.
According to court documents, until 2006, the ABPN would issue certifications to member psychiatrists, known as diplomates, for life.
Such certifications are not needed to practice psychiatry in any U.S. state. However, according to court documents, the certifications help psychiatrists to increase their earnings potential and obtain better malpractice insurance.
In 2006, the ABPN changed its rules to require diplomate psychiatrists to purchase a so-called "maintenance of certification" or MOC program to keep their certifications. The ABPN would revoke the certifications of psychiatrists who do not complete the MOC programs.
According to court documents, the ABPN holds a nationwide monopoly over such certifications, as there are no alternative boards or organizations to which psychiatrists can turn to obtain the benefits offered through ABPN certification.
According to court documents, Lazarou's certification had lapsed and was revoked after she allegedly did not complete a recertification exam. Akhter's certification remains current, but he complained in the lawsuit that the additional "time, money and effort" needed to maintain the certification was unfair.
The lawsuit asserts the ABPN has wrongly used its monopoly power over certifications to establish the MOC programs and essentially corner the market over continuing medical education products for psychiatrists.
They noted that under many state licensing systems, doctors are required to obtain a certain number of CME credits to maintain their licenses.
Such CME products are typically offered through third party vendors, according to court documents.
ABPN sought to dismiss the lawsuit, asserting its MOC programs were different from CME.
In his ruling, Judge Daniel agreed. He said througout proceedings in the case, the plaintiffs have consistently failed to show that "MOC is a CME product, or that "there is a 'distinct product market in which it is efficient to offer MOC separately from certification.'"
The ABPN MOC program, the judge said, "is primarily a requirement that participants to obtain (sic) educational content rather than a vehicle for providing that content."
The judge agreed with ABPN that the amount of educational content in the MOC program "is not enough to plausibly render MOC a substitute for CME products."
The judge agreed that plaintiffs may be frustrated by the MOC program, which may force them "to pay fees that they otherwise would not have incurred, or by taking valuable time away from patient care."
"These concerns, however legitimate, are not antitrust harms," Daniel said.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys C. Philip Curley and Robert L. Margolis, of the firm of Robinson Curley, of Chicago.
The ABPN was represented by attorneys Christopher B. Sullivan, of the firm of Mitchell Barlow & Mansfield, of Salt Lake City; and Anne I-Pin Shaw and Darryl Tom, of Shaw Legal Services, of Chicago.
A representative of the ABPN did not reply to a request for comment.