American Board of Internal Medicine v. Salas-Rushford, No. 21-1571 (1st Cir. 2024)
In American Board of Internal Medicine v. Salas-Rushford, No. 21-1571 (1st Cir. 2024), Dr. Jaime Salas Rushford, a physician in Puerto Rico, had his board certification suspended by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) after ABIM determined that he had improperly shared board exam questions with a test prep instructor. ABIM filed a lawsuit against Salas Rushford for copyright infringement in New Jersey. In response, Salas Rushford counterclaimed, alleging that the process leading to his suspension was fraudulent, or a “sham.”
The counterclaims were transferred to the District of Puerto Rico, where the district court granted ABIM’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing Salas Rushford’s claims and denying him leave to amend his pleading. The court found that he had failed to state claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tort claims against several ABIM-affiliated individuals. His Lanham Act claim for commercial disparagement was also dismissed.
Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court ruled that ABIM had broad discretion under its policies to revoke certification if a diplomate failed to meet the standards of ethical and professional behavior. The court held that Salas Rushford did not sufficiently allege that ABIM acted with a bad motive or ill intention, which is necessary to establish a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under New Jersey law.
The court also upheld the dismissal of Salas Rushford’s Lanham Act claim, noting that he failed to allege the essential elements of consumer or intentional deception required to support a claim for false advertising. Furthermore, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of Salas Rushford’s request for leave to amend his complaint, citing undue delay and his failure to present a compelling reason why amendment would be justified. Thus, Salas Rushford’s claims were ultimately rejected.
