Medical Board of California v. Hason, Michael (04/07/2003)

Questions presented: Does the 11th Amendment bar suit under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act against the California Medical Board for denial of a medical license based on the applicant's mental illness?

BY: JOSH DEVINE, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

In 1995, Michael Hason, despite a mental disability, wanted to be a physician.

And three years later, when the Medical Board of California, argued mental illness disqualified him from adequately serving his patients and denied him a medical license, Hason sued.

Hason filed a federal suit against a slew of defendants, including the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs, the state's medical licensing board and individuals involved in the process of approving physicians, seeking injunctive relief and punitive damages.

Hason argued that denying him a medical license was a violation of his Constitutional rights as well as a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Traditionally, medical licensing requires passing a series of written and practical examinations as well as paying appropriate fees, and can usually take between six and nine months. In 2001, according to the Medical Board's Web site, roughly 4,000 of its 4,650 applicants were approved.

The federal judge dismissed Hason's claims based on three points. First, the judge found that his claims were barred by the 11th Amendment, which prevents a private citizen from suing a state in federal court. Second, the judge ruled that Hason had failed to make a valid claim under the ADA, in that medical licensing is fundamentally different from other employment because "it does not constitute services, programs or activities."

Finally, because Hason had waited more than 120 days to pursue his case against the individuals, the district court ruled a failure to prosecute within the statute of limitations.

A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously reversed on the first two points.

Senior District Judge Albert Goodwin said that because Title II of the ADA trumps state sovereign immunity, state agencies can be sued for violations against people with disabilities.

Writing for the court, Judge Goodwin said that "courts must construe the language of the ADA broadly in order to effectively implement the ADA's fundamental purpose" of preventing discrimination because of disability. In doing so, the court decided that medicine is a public service and even though it is "not equivalent to employment," it should still be protected under the ADA.

Additionally, because Hason had stated that he had received treatment for his mental disability by the time of the Medical Board's decision, the judges ruled Hason was a "qualified individual with a disability," and should be able to pursue his ADA claim against the state.

The court, however, affirmed the district court's decision regarding Hason's third issue of individual liability in his case.

Still, on the case's first two points, the 9th Circuit remanded the case back to the district court.

On Nov. 18, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case and limited review to the 1st question in the Medical Board's petition to the Court relating to 11th Amendment immunity. The Court also allowed the United States to intervene.

Erwin Chemerinsky, Hason's attorney, said this case should set an important national precedent when it comes to the right of disabled citizens to sue their states.

"The issue in this case is whether or not Mr. Hason should have his day in court," Chemerinsky said. Because of the 11th Amendment, the state, he argues, says Hason's claim shouldn't be heard.

However, the state's attorney, Joel Davis, argues that the licensing of medical professionals is critical to state sovereign immunity, and should not be susceptible to federal suits.

On March 7, 2003, the Court cancelled oral arguments in the case. They had been set for March 25, but California, which had sought review by the Court, urged the Court to dismiss the case. Hason opposed the dismissal. A month later, on April 7 2003, the case was dismissed from the Court's docket.