Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00315/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00315-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

RALPH E. KROLIK, M.D., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

NATIONAL BOARD OF MEDICAL

EXAMINERS, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-0315-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (doc. 23),

defendant's opposition, and plaintiff's reply. Also before the court are plaintiff's hearing brief

in support of motion for preliminary injunction and defendant's pre-hearing brief in

opposition to motion for preliminary injunction. We held an evidentiary hearing on January

13, 2006. These are our findings and rulings under Rule 52(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Plaintiff seeks an order that would require the defendant to give the plaintiff twice the

usual time to take the United States medical licensing exam and to allow him to use pencil

and paper rather than a computer. He also seeks an order requiring the defendant to

administer the test immediately. He grounds his claims under the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §

504, et seq.

Case 2:05-cv-00315-FJM Document 71 Filed 01/20/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Dr. Butterbaugh believes that plaintiff has attention deficit disorder and attention

deficit/hyperactivity disorder. (ADD/ADHD). He claims this limits plaintiff's major life

activities of "working" and "learning."

In contrast, Dr. Gordon testified that plaintiff does not have ADD/ADHD. Among

other things, he relies on the plaintiff's own report from Dr. Hoblett and the absence of any

suggestion in the plaintiff's history that he had any of the symptoms of ADD/ADHD.

Plaintiff is a licensed pharmacist and a licensed pilot. He took and passed these

licensing examinations without any accommodation. He has been a successful business man.

The defendant has accommodated other persons with ADD/ADHD but has denied plaintiff's

request because it believed there is no evidence to support it.

In granting or denying a preliminary injunction, we consider (1) the likelihood of

success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury, (3) the balance of hardships,

and (4) the public interest. A plaintiff must demonstrate either a combination of probable

success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are

raised and the balance of hardships tips in plaintiff's favor. Save our Sonoran, Inc. v.

Flowers, 408 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005). We apply these tests to the facts as we have

found them.

Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. There is a conflict in the

evidence on whether the plaintiff has ADD/ADHD. But even if a fact finder concluded that

he has it, there is no evidence that the plaintiff has been limited in the major life activities of

working and learning. He has learned well enough to become a licensed pharmacist and pilot

and has had a productive work life. 

We turn our focus to the question of irreparable injury. The trial in this case is

scheduled on a firm basis for September 12, 2006, less then nine months from now.

Although plaintiff says he would like to study for the test now, we do not see any irreparable

injury in waiting for the trial on the merits. This is not a case in which plaintiff is seeking

to preserve the status quo pending a trial on the merits, but instead plaintiff is seeking the

same affirmative relief he would have sought had he prevailed on the merits. 

Case 2:05-cv-00315-FJM Document 71 Filed 01/20/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Nor can we say that even if serious questions are raised the balance of hardships tips

sharply in plaintiff's favor. Plaintiff graduated from medical school over ten years ago.

Under these circumstances, we fail to see why things are urgent now. And finally, we do not

believe the public interest would be advanced by allowing the plaintiff to take the tests under

conditions favorable to him. The public's interest is advanced when the defendant does its

job to ensure that only those who are qualified will be licensed to practice medicine in the

United States. Malpractice and poor medical care is widespread thus suggesting that the

present standards may be too low. The public's interest would not be served by lowering the

bar further.

We conclude that the evidence does not support the granting of plaintiff's application

for preliminary injunction under any formulation of the test. Given the complexity of these

issues, and the conflict in the evidence related to the underlying claim, these issues are better

resolved at a trial on the merits where both sides can have a full and fair opportunity to be

heard. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for preliminary

injunction (doc. 23). 

 

DATED this 19th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00315-FJM Document 71 Filed 01/20/06 Page 3 of 3