On January 15, 2025, oral arguments were made before the 7th Circuit Appellate Court in Chicago regarding the Lazarou v American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) (24-1994). Both attorneys for the Plaintiffs and ABPN presented their points to the judges. A link to the full transcript of those proceedings is provided here. In summary,
- Mr. Curley (Attorney for the Plaintiffs) argued that the ABPN’s MOC product meets the criteria established in the SIVA case for being part of the CME market. He emphasized that the MOC product contains educational content, allows doctors to earn CME credits, and is accepted by states for licensure purposes. He also pointed out that the MOC product can substitute for other CME products, thus impacting competition.
- Mr. Sullivan (Attorney for ABPN) countered that the ABPN does not produce or sell CME products and does not compete in the CME market. He argued that the differences highlighted by Mr. Curley are not legally significant and that the ABPN’s MOC requirements do not foreclose competition in the CME market.
The judges asked probing questions to both sides, indicating that they were considering the arguments carefully. Ultimately, the decision on which argument is more compelling will be made by the court after taking the appeal under advisement.
Thanks to all who helped support this ongoing legal effort against MOC.