ABR also virtually ignores the new Sherman Act, Section 2 tying opinion, Viamedia, Inc. v. Comcast Corp., 951 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 2020), in which the Seventh Circuit reversed summary judgment for defendant, rejecting the same single product arguments ABR makes here. First, Viamedia holds that whether there is separate demand must be assessed before the tie is imposed, and not after. Viamedia, 951 F.3d at 469 (“the market must be ‘assessed at the pre-contract rather than post-contract stage’”) (quoting Philip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application, ¶ 1802d6, at 89 (4th Ed. 2018) (“Areeda & Hovenkamp”)).Additionally, the new brief suggests the adhesion contract physicians must sign when enrolling in MOC (or one of its Continuous Professional Development (CPD) successors) are irrelevant to the antitrust issues being decided by the court:
This guts both premises of ABR’s single product theory: (1) that certifications should be analyzed post-MOC, with MOC viewed as a component of a “multi-stage” process (ABR at 8), rather than before ABR imposed its tie forcing radiologists to buy MOC or have their certifications revoked; and (2) as to MOC, “the relevant inquiry” is whether there currently is conflated demand for a single CPD product (MOC) and certifications as a result of ABR’s tie (id.), rather than inquiring whether there was separate demand by radiologists for CPD products before ABR tied certifications and MOC. See Viamedia, 951 F.3d at 469 (consumers “viewed the services as separate prior into entering into their present [tying] contracts with Comcast”). The Viamedia imperative to assess demand before the tie makes perfect sense because focusing on demand after the tie is forced on consumers inevitably rewards the defendant who has already successfully reduced competition, the very goal of the illegal tie. Viamedia makes clear that a defendant like ABR who forces consumers to purchase a tied product, cannot then parlay its own coercion into evidence of lack of separate demand for a product that the victimized consumers would not otherwise purchase, exactly what ABR argues here. (ABR at 8-9, 11).
ABR argues repeatedly that Dr. Siva “knew” from “the outset” based on a “contract” that MOC was tied to certifications. (ABR at 3-4, 10, 11). In doing so, ABR misrepresents information and documents about MOC that Dr. Siva received “after he purchased his certification.” (¶ 255; emphasis added).7 Dr. Siva alleges that neither his application for certification nor the certificate itself referred to “initial” certification or to MOC. (¶¶ 250, 252- 253). (emphasis mine) The FAC also alleges no contract obligating radiologists to buy MOC; nor does any such contract exist. Radiologists are forced to buy MOC because if they do not, ABR revokes their certifications, without which a successful medical career is impossible.There is no question the heat is being turned up of the American Board of Radiology and this new legal precedent set by Viamedia prioritizes the importance of the history and original intent of board certification (that is, of assuring adequate residency training) is an important factor in establishing the illegal product tie that ABR has leveraged with MOC against its diplomates for their financial benefit.
At any rate, ABR’s argument is a diversion. Awareness that a tie exists when the tying product is bought does not make the tie any less coercive. Radiologists’ knowledge of ABR’s monopoly power and leverage cannot absolve ABR of its illegal tie.
ABR has approximately three weeks to respond to these latest arguments.
PS: Physicians wishing to help the ongoing legal efforts to end MOC for all subspecialties are encouraged to contribute to the GoFundMe page created to support the plaintiffs.