Court grants ABO summary judgment in case brought by AOS

A district court has granted a motion for summary judgment in a case that the American Optometric Society brought against the American Board of Optometry regarding statements surrounding board certification.

According to a press release issued by the American Board of Optometry (ABO), the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, granted the ABO's motion for summary judgment in the case.

According to a press release issued by the American Optometric Society (AOS), the court said it would "grant the ABO's motion on the grounds the case was 'moot,' if the ABO agreed to a court order which, 'in clear, strong and unequivocal language,' prohibited the ABO" from publishing certain statements that the AOS claimed were false and misleading and that the court previously found actionable.

In the AOA House of Delegates at Optometry's Meeting in Salt Lake City, an attorney explained the meaning of a summary judgment. "It's a determination by the court that a trial was not necessary, that in the court's opinion it was clear enough that they could rule without having to go through a trial," he said.

"Though I'm aware the ABO is claiming a victory, the court's order granted the AOS virtually all of the relief the AOS requested in its initial lawsuit against the ABO," AOS President Pamela Miller, OD, JD, said in the AOS press release.

The summary judgment specifies that in January the ABO discontinued certain statements that were disputed by the AOS.

The AOS release also stated, "The decision by the court is not yet final because the AOS objected to the court's ruling to the extent it found that the ABO's agreement rendered the case moot without addressing a new claim added by the AOS in February."

The court's ruling fails to address the new claim protesting that the ABO's use of the phrases "board certified" and "board certification" are "misleading and confusing to the public," according to the AOS release.

The AOS said it "has filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its decision that the case is now fully moot and should be ended since this new issue has not been ruled upon or addressed."