By David H. Kirkwood
PITTSBURGH—The dispute between the Academy of Doctors of Audiology (ADA) and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) escalated August 2 when ADA sued ASHA in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh. The lawsuit seeks an injunction against ASHA requiring it to correct what ADA charges were “fraudulent statements” made in letters to audiologists and on its web site.
ADA fired the first shot in the legal battle on June 27, when Robert Gippin, the academy’s counsel, wrote to ASHA asking it to “remedy (1) false statements ASHA has made about the consequences of not holding the CCC-A and (2) the illegal tying of CCC-A holder status to practicum supervision for purposes of CCC-A eligibility.”
As reported in this blog on July 6 (see hearinghealthmatters.org/hearingnewswatch/2011/ada-accuses-asha-of-making-false-statements-to-audiologists), ADA’s complaint was prompted by form letters sent to some of its members by ASHA. One letter, addressed to audiologists who had given notice of canceling their CCC-A status, asked them to sign and return to ASHA an acknowledgment that they “cannot supervise students in clinical practicum or during the clinical fellowship.” This statement, said Gippin, is “inaccurate.”
ADA’s attorney cited “even stronger inaccurate statements” in a letter telling audiologists who had not maintained their ASHA certification. It warned, “You will be prohibited from providing or supervising the provision of clinical services.”
Gippin went on to accuse ASHA of “illegally maintaining” its monopoly in the area of certification “by requiring CCC-A status for practicum supervision for CCC-A eligibility.”
ASHA’S RESPONSE
Gippin’s letter drew a sharp response from Constance Robinson, an attorney for ASHA. In her letter of July 20, titled “ADA’s Misguided and False Accusations,” Robinson said that ADA has “adopted positions based on misinformation and been spreading misinformation…in an apparent attempt to harm ASHA’s reputation and prevent it from advising its members and others holding the CCC-A of the risk of losing their certification.”
Robinson said that the various form letters to which ADA objected were sent to about 400 individuals in specific situations and were accurate and clear in their context. For example, the statement that audiologists who give up their CCC-A status can no longer “supervise students in clinical practicum” is true if the students are being trained “for the purpose of ASHA certification.” While she acknowledged that the letter cited by ADA “did not expressly include the phrase ‘for the purpose of ASHA certification,’” the attorney insisted that it was clear to the recipients of the letter that this is what was meant.
Robinson continued, “As there were no intentional false statements, you have no basis to argue that these letters are fraudulent or acts designed to maintain an alleged monopoly.”
In concluding, she said, “we believe ASHA’s communications with those who hold the CCC-A have been clear and that the statements you complain about are not false or misleading or in violation of any law.” However, Robinson added that “ASHA has voluntarily modified its letters to further remind readers of the context in which they are being made.”
She closed, “Now that we have apprised you of the correct facts, we trust that you will cease and desist from disseminating false information in the industry and will consider this matter closed.”
NO CLOSURE FOR ADA
Clearly, ADA does not consider the matter “closed,” nor is it satisfied by the ASHA lawyer’s explanation of the letters in question. As for ASHA’s voluntary modification of those letters, ADA noted that ASHA “did not say how or when it would do that–even after ADA’s attorneys requested that information.”
“We had no choice but to file suit,” said ADA’s president, Bruce Vircks, AuD. “ASHA simply would not tell us what it intended to do about its admittedly false statements. And it did not offer to make amends for what it has done.”
In its request for an injunction, ADA asked the court to require ASHA to correct fraudulent statements it has made in letters to audiologists and on its website. Furthermore, the requested injunction would require ASHA to notify all audiologists who received or renewed the CCC-A in the past four years that they may cancel retroactively and receive a refund with interest.
ADA’s official complaint can be read at www.audiologist.org/_resources/documents/legal/Complaint%20w%20exh%208-2-11.pdf.
