Subject: Judge Throws Out Lawsuit Against Medical-Residency Matching Program

"As I recall, but I don't have the link, Senator Ted Kennedy quickly slip an amendment in an unrelated appropriations bill prohibiting medical residences from suing the medical residency program."

Here is the link explaining why a judge dismissed the case against the Medical-Residency Matching Program: "He cited legislation, signed into law in April, that exempts the matching program from antitrust laws. That language was inserted into an unrelated pension bill at the request of U.S. Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, a Democrat from Massachusetts, and Judd Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire (The Chronicle, April 23)."

Bob

Subject: Judge Throws Out Lawsuit Against Medical-Residency Matching Program

http://chronicle.com/prm/daily/2004/08/2004081701n.htm

http://chronicle.com/daily/2004/08/2004081701n.htm

Judge Throws Out Lawsuit Against Medical-Residency Matching Program, Citing Recent

Legislation By KATHERINE S. MANGAN

Tuesday, August 17, 2004

A federal judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit challenging the system that matches medical-school graduates with the programs that train them as physicians. The lawsuit, filed in 2002, contended that the system violates antitrust laws, forcing medical residents to work too many hours for too little pay (The Chronicle, May 17, 2002).

If it had succeeded, the lawsuit could have forced teaching hospitals to pay millions of dollars in legal costs and back pay to residents, and forced medical associations to come up with a new strategy to pair residents and hospitals.

In a ruling issued last week, Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sided with the Association of American Medical Colleges, one of the groups that sponsor the 52-year-old National Resident Matching Program. He cited legislation, signed into law in April, that exempts the matching program from antitrust laws. That language was inserted into an unrelated pension bill at the request of U.S. Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, a Democrat from Massachusetts, and Judd Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire (The Chronicle, April 23).

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of 200,000 plaintiffs who had been medical residents since 1998, was brought against the medical-school association, as well as the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education and 27 teaching hospitals with residency programs.

The plaintiffs argued that the computerized matching program, which assigns each resident to a training program, forces the medical-school graduates to accept all of the terms of employment. They concluded that the system amounts to price fixing by reducing competitive pressure on training programs. Residents typically work 60 to 80 hours per week for less than $10 an hour.

Officials with the medical-school association countered that residents are familiar with the pay and working conditions of each residency program before they submit their top choices to the matching program.

Sherman Marek, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said he expects to appeal the ruling or file new claims. "One way or another, we intend to continue to pursue legal action for fair wages and safe work hours for residents," he said.

Hospitals, medical schools, and their national associations had lobbied hard for legislation that would derail the antitrust lawsuit, Mr. Marek said, adding, "They spent a lot of money getting this legislation passed because they knew they were going to lose in court."

In a written statement, the medical-school association called the ruling "a great victory for everyone in the medical-education community."

"The AAMC wholeheartedly applauds the district court for dismissing this costly and destructive litigation, which has diverted the nation's teaching hospitals from their important missions of patient care, physician training, and medical research," the statement said. Association officials declined further comment.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat, was one of several senators who complained about the last-minute amendment, which was added just before House and Senate negotiators met to draft a compromise version of the pension bill. The amendment referring to the matching process was inserted about 50 pages into the bill.

"There has been no justification presented to this Congress, to any committee of this Congress, for depriving medical residents of the same protections under the antitrust laws that are enjoyed by other workers and other Americans," he told his colleagues just before the Senate voted to approve the final version of the pension bill.

"Frankly this is outrageous for Congress to be legislating in this way, without any hearings, without any testimony, without any knowledge of what it is doing."

Aides to Senators Kennedy and Gregg were not available to comment on Monday.

The full text of Judge Friedman's ruling is available on the court's Web site

Copyright © 2004 by The Chronicle of Higher Education