Biank v. National Bd. of Medical Examiners

Citations: 130 F. Supp. 2d 986; 151 Educ. L. Rep. 507; 11 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 925; 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19752Docket: 99 C 3390

Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois; October 16, 2000; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Vincent Biank filed for interlocutory injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) on May 21, 1999, requesting an additional day to take the USMLE Step 1 Exam due to dyslexia. A Temporary Restraining Order was issued on May 27, 1999, allowing him double-time for the exam, but the 7th Circuit stayed this order the next day. Biank is now seeking final mandatory injunctive relief to obtain an extra day for the Step 2 Exam scheduled for October 19-20, 2000, also citing his disability under the ADA. He also seeks reasonable attorney fees, to be determined later. 

Biank, a fourth-year medical student, requires passing the USMLE, a three-step examination necessary for medical licensure in the United States. The NBME, which administers the USMLE, denied his request for double-time accommodation for Step 1 in a May 17, 1999 letter. Despite the lack of accommodation, Biank took Step 1 on June 8, 1999, and passed with a score of 192, above the minimum passing score of 179. He completed his Step 2 application on March 28, 2000, for the upcoming testing period.

Plaintiff applied for a double-time accommodation for his Step 2 examination, requesting to take the test over two days instead of one. The NBME denied this request in a letter dated June 27, 2000. The case is now before the Court after a bench trial, where evidence, witness testimony, and counsel arguments have been reviewed. The Court has determined it has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331, and venue is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c). The NBME is subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities, including the denial of reasonable accommodations as defined in 42 U.S.C. 12189. The ADA defines "disability" in three ways, including a substantial limitation of major life activities. The determination of disability is individualized and follows a three-step process: identifying an impairment, determining if it affects a major life activity, and assessing whether the impairment substantially limits that activity. The DOJ defines "physical or mental impairment" broadly and major life activities include, among others, learning and working. The term "substantially limits" is interpreted in relation to how it affects an individual's ability to perform important life activities compared to most people. A Sixth Circuit case found that a medical student's reading disability did not substantially limit him compared to others, affirming the DOJ’s interpretation over the EEOC's.

The EEOC defines "substantially limits" regarding major life activities, distinguishing between general activities and the activity of working. For general life activities, it refers to significant restrictions in comparison to the average person, while for working, it pertains to limitations in performing a class of jobs compared to an average person with similar skills. The Second Circuit, in Bartlett, adopted the EEOC's definition for evaluating claims under Subchapter III of the ADA, highlighting ambiguity in the DOJ's Preamble and advocating for consistency across the ADA. The court supported this interpretation based on several factors: the EEOC provides a clear definition, the DOJ does not, and the ADA's purpose is to establish consistent standards for disability discrimination. The Bartlett case involved a plaintiff who failed the Bar Examination multiple times and was subsequently fired, demonstrating an inability to work, which contrasts with the current case being evaluated. Additionally, the ADA permits injunctive relief for disabled individuals, with courts assessing four criteria to determine whether to grant such relief. A permanent injunction, unlike a temporary one, requires the plaintiff to demonstrate success on the merits rather than a likelihood of success.

1. Plaintiff, a fourth-year medical student with dyslexia, is required to take Step 2 of the USMLE, which is essential for becoming a licensed medical doctor. 
2. He has not previously attempted Step 2 and has successfully passed Step 1 without additional time accommodations. Both exams are conducted over an 8-hour period.
3. The plaintiff did not demonstrate that his dyslexia significantly limits his ability to pass Step 2 compared to an average fourth-year medical student or that a low passing score would restrict his participation in his desired residency program.
4. Evidence suggests that a passing score would not impact his eligibility for residency in his chosen specialty.
5. Consequently, the plaintiff has not shown that he would suffer irreparable harm without the requested accommodation. 
6. The court denied plaintiff Vincent Biank's request for a permanent mandatory injunction against the National Board of Medical Examiners.