Standardized Testing and Scoring
In an April 28, 2025 decision, the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit considered an appeal by a pro se applicant (someone representing themselves) from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Zangara resided in New Jersey. As a child, he was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and other learning disorders. He has difficulty concentrating unless in a silent room and reported a memory problem, although the cause has not been identified. Although he had dreamed of becoming a doctor, his early college coursework resulted in failure and led him to become a firefighter for ten years. He then completed an online associates degree and enrolled at Caribbean Medical University (CMU) in Curacao, describing professors as “more forgiving” with grades. He also completed clinical training at various hospitals in the United States.
Upon completion of his education, Zangara was unable to successfully complete standardized examinations, including the Comprehensive Basic Science Exam and the Comprehensive Basic Science Self-Assessment developed and administered by the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME). Zangara alleged that the NBME “discriminates against those that have a disability.” Notably, Zangara did not request an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to address testing features that may disadvantage students with disabilities. Instead, he sought to have the NBME discontinue its scoring methodology, which he argued produced inequitable results.
Zangara filed a pro se action to challenge how the NBME scored certain examinations required for licensure. This Court reviewed the petition and highlighted the finding in Doe, 189 F.3d at 156, which stated, “the notion of accessibility…does not mandate that the NBME provide examinations to the disabled that yield technically equal results; it mandates changes to examinations – alternative accessible arrangements.” § 42 U.S.C. 12189 provides that “disabled people who are disadvantaged by certain features of standardized examinations may take the examinations without those features that disadvantage them.
He sought a preliminary injunction, which was denied. The District Court granted NBME’s motion to dismiss.