“Explain it to me like I’m a 6-year-old, because I just don’t get it …”

            Jury Foreman, the movie “Philadelphia”

We attorneys are frequently guilty of using overly prosaic words and legalese designed to confuse even Robert Oppenheimer or Albert Einstein. Perhaps it is a defense mechanism. Or ego. Or both.

Many people have heard of the recent lawsuit filed against iaedp and Ms. Bonnie Harken. Make no mistake, it is a very complex lawsuit involving class action allegations, antitrust allegations and racketeering allegations. Even younger, relatively inexperienced attorneys may have difficulty understanding the nuances of the lawsuit. So, I will endeavor to attempt to explain the lawsuit only with regard to certification.

First, it was only after all attempts to discuss and hopefully resolve troubling issues with iaedp were rebuffed by Ms. Harken that the lawsuit was filed.

The decision was not made easily. The terms offered to iaedp were designed to improve the corporate chapters, to increase their involvement and to take iaedp into the following decades with wisdom and vision. The only absolute required Ms. Harken to resign.

Ms. Harken chose to not respond.

And so, that left no alternative.

Defendants

The named defendants in the case are Bonnie Harken, her son, Matthew Harken, iaedp Foundation, Inc., Dena Cabrera, Ralph Carson and Joel Jahraus.

Ms. Cabrera, and Drs. Carson and Jahraus are not involved in the allegations and issues regarding certification so their involvement in the lawsuit will not be addressed in this article.

And so, that leads us to the specific claims made regarding certification.

Claims regarding Certification

FIRST, UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE NOT ATTACKING THE SUBSTANCE OF IAEDP CERTIFICATION.  Nor do we want it to go away. That is beyond what this lawsuit is about.

Claims involving certification are based on the fact that certification is tied into mandatory membership in iaedp and attendance at 1 out of every 4 symposiums is required. Because iaedp certification is the only recognized eating disorder certification, we believe tying it to on-going membership and attending a symposium violates anti-trust laws.

Since membership fees and symposium fees are not reasonably related nor an integral part of iaedp certification, the mandatory inclusion of same is merely to increase the coffers of iaedp and enrichen its managing director.

iaedp has exclusive market power, a 100% monopoly, in the eating disorder Board Certification Market, as there are no substitutes for eating disorder board certification available to eating disorder specialists.

By conditioning iaedp certification on continuous membership in iaedp and the cost of iaedp’s annual membership dues, as well as mandatory in person attendance at a symposium, we believe iaedp violated the antitrust laws.

As recently as 2022,Ms. Harken had actual knowledge that this tying arrangement may run afoul of antitrust laws.   Ms. Harken had actual knowledge of the case, Talone, et. al. v. The American Osteopathic Association, Case No. 1:16-cv-04644 (D. N.J. Jun. 12, 2017) and the issues involving unlawfully tying association membership with board certification. However, Ms. Harken dismissed any concerns by attempting to justify that since the costs for association membership and certification had allegedly not increased, she could link the two.

It is interesting that in the December 5, 2023 iaedp newsletter, iaedp spends a considerable amount of time discussing the substance of certification. However, not once does iaedp address the tying arrangement aspect nor the fact that Ms. Harken had actual knowledge of a lawsuit in which a similar tying arrangement resulted in a settlement in which that certification was stripped from the organization and members were entitled to reimbursement for fees paid.

And we can’t help but wonder why? Why was this information not given to iaedp members?

Iaedp and Ms. Harken were correct in stating “allegations do not constitute facts.” Those facts will come out in Court. But, as therapists, as medical and mental health providers, you are burdened with an awful, a difficult, a herculean task. And that is, families are relying on you to try to help them save the lives of their loved ones.  Is there a bigger burden?

You deserve all relevant and material information to help you undertake this burden. Anything else and you are being betrayed.

The other issues in the lawsuit are incredibly more complex. And may be addressed in another explanatory article.

But for now, I strongly believe that most people’s goals and aspirations are the same as ours. We want the certification process to be better, stronger, forward thinking, open, transparent and to reflect the needs of professionals.

Our families deserve nothing else.