Recent Cases and Publications
01.
Dr. BRUCE E. ELLLISON, M.D.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
AMERICAN BOARD of ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY (ABOS),
Defendant-Appellee -- United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
​
Brief for Amicus Curiae National Medical Association (NMA) and Alan D. Ullberg in support of Plaintiff-Appellant in Support of Reversal
​
ABOS’s imposed Catch 22 is the core of Dr. Ellison’s antitrust lawsuit against Defendant ABOS. ABOS refuses to allow Dr. Ellison's completion of the final oral certification examination, despite his passing ABOS’s more difficult initial written examination, unless he first obtains hospital medical staff privileges.
The Federal District Court in New Jersey expressly recognized the “catch-22” that ABOS imposes in this case:
​
"This, says Dr. Ellison, confronted him with the proverbial catch-22: without
medical staff privileges he cannot take Part II of the [ABOS] certification exam, but
without [ABOS] certification he cannot acquire medical staff privileges.”
Hospitals require that staff doctors maintain board certification. These interdependent requirements create ABOS's Catch-22: no hospital privileges without ABOS board certification; no ABOS board certification without hospital privileges
02.
Dr. RAKESH WAHI, M.D.,
Petitioner,
v.
CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,
Respondents -- Supreme Court of the United States
​
Brief for Amicus Curiae SEMMELWEIS SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL, INC.
​
The Fourth Circuit’s Wahi judicial proceeding decision takes the federal courts’ reliance on physicians’ ethical obligations to an unreal extreme by first turning physicians into silent slaves to those in control of credentialing and peer review, yet still expecting these same physicians to be independent professionals who will advocate for their patients while practicing quality patient care.
The reality is that the Wahi case legal decision stripped away the few remaining HCQIA procedures that physicians still had to protect themselves in disputes —and their patients who are the immediate sufferers from too many tests and procedures and generally bad medicine—against revenue-hungry hospital administrators and mediocre-care colleagues who practice quantity-care, not quality-care.
​
In short, the Wahi judicial decision shifted legal power further towards those within the healthcare system for whom actions are primarily all about money.
03.
Case 3
04.
Case 4
05.
Case 5