Conklin v. University of Washington Medical Center et al

Filing 142

ORDER granting defendant Thoracic Surgery Directors Association's 120 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Complaint; granting defendant American Board of Thoracic Surgery Inc's 121 Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT) (American Board of Thoracic Surgery Inc and Thoracic Surgery Directors Association Inc terminated.)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

JEREMY CONKLIN,

9
10

Plaintiff,
v.

11
12
13

CASE NO. C18-0090RSL

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
MEDICINE, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING ABTS AND
TSDA’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant Thoracic Surgery Directors
Association’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint” (Dkt. # 120)
and “Defendant American Board of Thoracic Surgery, Inc.’s Motions to Dismiss Second
Amended Complaint” (Dkt. # 121).
Plaintiff, a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (“DO”), applied for a congenital
cardiac surgery (“CCS”) fellowship sponsored by the University of Washington School
of Medicine in 2015, 2016, and 2017. His application was rejected each time. After the
2017 rejection, the program director informed plaintiff that his application had been
rejected because he did not meet one of the eligibility requirements, namely
“[c]ertification or eligibility for certification by the American Board of Thoracic
Surgery.” Dkt. # 4-1 at 21.

26
ORDER GRANTING ABTS AND
TSDA’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS

1

Defendant Thoracic Surgery Directors Association (“TSDA”) operates a match

2

program through which applicants apply for training residencies and fellowships,

3

including the CCS fellowship to which plaintiff applied. In order to participate in the

4

CCS match program, TSDA requires that applicants be board certified or eligible to be

5

board certified by defendant the American Board of Thoracic Surgery (“ABTS”).

6

Plaintiff was not eligible for certification by the ABTS because he did not complete a

7

course of training accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical

8

Education (“ACGME”). Plaintiff alleges that the eligibility requirements ABTS set for

9

board certification and TSDA set for the CCS match impermissibly excluded DOs in

10

violation of federal and state antitrust laws.1 Plaintiff further alleges that TSDA and

11

ABTS conspired with other defendants to preclude DOs from practicing in certain

12

specialties, such as CCS, in favor of MDs, thereby causing him emotional distress.

13

TSDA and ABTS seek dismissal of all claims asserted against it.

14

The question for the Court on a motion to dismiss is whether the facts alleged in

15

the complaint sufficiently state a “plausible” ground for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v.

16

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Plausibility requires pleading facts, as
opposed to conclusory allegations or the formulaic recitation of elements
of a cause of action, and must rise above the mere conceivability or
possibility of unlawful conduct that entitles the pleader to relief. Factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a
defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and
plausibility of entitlement to relief. Nor is it enough that the complaint is
factually neutral; rather, it must be factually suggestive.
1

Plaintiff’s 2017 application for the University of Washington CCS fellowship was
rejected before the match for failure to meet these eligibility requirements.
ORDER GRANTING ABTS AND
TSDA’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS

-2-

1

Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 959-60 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks

2

and citations omitted). All well-pleaded allegations are presumed to be true, with all

3

reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the non-moving party. In re Fitness Holdings

4

Int’l, Inc., 714 F.3d 1141, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 2013). If the complaint fails to state a

5

cognizable legal theory or fails to provide sufficient facts to support a claim, dismissal is

6

appropriate. Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th

7

Cir. 2010).

8
9
10

Having considered the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint, the
submissions of the parties, and the remainder of the record, the Court finds as follows:
A. Antitrust Claims

11

In order to state an antitrust claim under federal law, plaintiff must plead

12

sufficient facts to state a plausible antitrust injury. “Antitrust injury” means “injury of

13

the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which

14

makes defendants’ acts unlawful.” Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl–O–Mat, Inc., 429

15

U.S. 477, 489 (1977). For the reasons set forth in the Order Granting in Part Provider

16

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, plaintiff’s federal and state antitrust claims fail as a

17

matter of law.

18

B. Civil Conspiracy

19

Plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired to violate federal and state antitrust

20

laws and to discriminate against him in violation of RCW 70.41.235. He does not

21

dispute that if, as found above and in the Order Granting in Part Provider Defendants’

22

Motion to Dismiss, he has failed to allege a viable antitrust or statutory claim, his

23

conspiracy claim based on the same conduct fails as a matter of law.

24

C. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

25

“As with any claim sounding in negligence, where a plaintiff brings suit based on

26
ORDER GRANTING ABTS AND
TSDA’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS

-3-

1

negligent infliction of emotional distress we test the plaintiff’s negligence claim against

2

the established concepts of duty, breach, proximate cause, and damage or injury.”

3

Snyder v. Med. Serv. Corp. of E. Wash., 145 Wn. 2d 233, 243 (2001) (internal quotation

4

marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege a breach of any

5

duty TSDA or ABTS owed plaintiff to refrain from violating federal or state antitrust

6

laws.

7

D. Declaratory Judgment

8
9

Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claim is based on antitrust violations that he has
not adequately alleged.

10
11
12
13
14

For all of the foregoing reasons, ABTS and TSDA’s motions to dismiss (Dkt.
# 120 and # 121) are GRANTED.
Dated this 4th day of December, 2018.

A

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING ABTS AND
TSDA’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS

-4-