Supreme Court Refuses to Hear NRMP Suit

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a final petition filed by the plaintiffs in an antitrust lawsuit filed over the National Resident Matching Program, or NRMP. The court's action means a U.S. District Court dismissal of the case will stand.

The decision ends litigation first filed in May 2002. In the suit, three former resident physicians claimed the Association of American Medical Colleges, or AAMC, and 35 other associations and academic health centers violated antitrust laws by conspiring to "illegally restrain competition in the market for resident physician services" through the NRMP.

The Supreme Court decision "is proof positive that the NRMP is as good and fair a system as can be put together" for matching residents to training programs, said Perry Pugno, M.D., M.P.H., director of medical education at the AAFP. "It's a vindication of our system for graduate medical education."

Darrell Kirch, M.D., AAMC president, agreed. "We are pleased that the nation's highest court has finally closed the books on this long legal battle," he said in a written statement. "With this decision, medical students and residency programs can continue to reap the benefits of this valuable program."

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the lawsuit in 2004 and again in 2005. In those decisions, the District Court ruled that Title 15 of the Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004 (PDF File: 2 pages / 127 KB. More about PDFs) rendered the issue moot. That law specifically exempted the NRMP from antitrust violations. The plaintiffs lost the next round in the U.S. Court of Appeals in June 2006 and appealed to the Supreme Court.

"This is a good example of a frivolous lawsuit that has cost this nation's already financially challenged graduate medical education programs millions of dollars to defend themselves," said Pugno. "The appeals court gave the plaintiffs a pretty clear message, but they appealed it to the Supreme Court level anyway. That continued to hold all graduate medical education programs hostage" because programs and institutions were required to set aside funds against potential litigation about residency training contracts.