UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS
LAWSUITS FILED
1. Steven
Wynne, (appellant) V.
For the First
Circuit
Background: In Wynne’s first year at Tufts, he failed eight of his 15 courses. Although Tuft’s academic guidelines called for dismissal after failure of five courses, Wynne was allowed to repeat his first year of medical school. In addition to this special consideration, Wynne was also granted accommodations to influence his study habits and support his success. It was after his first year that Wynne was diagnosed with “cognitive deficits and weaknesses in processing discrete units of information.” He was never diagnosed with a specific disorder. After Wynne was given the opportunity to take make-up exams in the two classes he failed the second time he did the first year’s curriculum, he failed one of the exams and was dismissed. The district court granted summary judgment in Tuft’s favor and Wynne has appealed.
It is Wynne’s opinion that had he been granted an oral make-up exam for
his
make-up exams, he would not have failed. He asserted that it was his
right
under the
1. Jane Doe, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. New
York
University: John Sawhill, individually and as President of New York
University;
Ivan Bennett, M.D., individually and as Dean of New York University
School of
Medicine; Jacobus Potter, individually and as Associate Dean of New
York
University School of Medicine; David Scotch, individually and as Dean
of
Students of New York University School of Medicine,
Defendants-Appellants.
For the Second Circuit
Background: Jane Doe was a woman gifted academically.
She applied
and was accepted to schools of such merit as NYU and
Doe and the University
agreed that
if the
episodes did not stop, she would be expected to withdraw from the
program. Doe
continued to have episodes of cutting and was asked to leave the
University.
After a series of psychiatric evaluations and different treatment
methods, NYU
decided not to readmit Doe because of the likelihood of repeated
events. Doe
then filed a lawsuit stating that her rights under the Rehabilitation
Act had
been violated, and she sought a preliminary injunction requiring NYU to
readmit
her. The Defendants filed for summary judgment. The District Court
denied
summary judgment and found that in the court’s opinion, Doe had a low
likelihood of recurrence and was granted the preliminary injunction.
The Court
of Appeals disagreed on the former and agreed with the latter. The
Court of
Appeals reversed the decision for mandatory preliminary injunction and
affirmed
the denial for summary judgment. Not only did the Court of Appeals
believe that
Doe failed to show irreparable harm, but believed that the evidence
showed a
significant risk that Doe would have a recurrence of her mental
disorder.
Medical school is very stressful as is the life of a medical
professional. Doe
did admit that stress is a trigger for her to act out. For the above
mentioned
reasons, the Court of Appeals made its decision.
2. Francisco
Garcia V.
For the Second Circuit
Summary: Garcia was dismissed from SUNY after he repeatedly failed to successfully complete his first year of medical school. After the dismissal, Garcia was diagnosed as experiencing Attention Deficit Disorder and a learning disability. Subsequently, Garcia sought readmission to SUNY. SUNY did readmit him, but the two parties could not agree on how much of the first year curriculum he would have to repeat. Garcia chose not to re-enroll: instead, he filed a law suit against SUNY alleging violations of the First Amendment, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The District Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissal of all allegations. The Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff’s accusations were without merit and affirmed the District Court’s judgment.
1. Jayne
G.
Nathanson (appellant) V. The
For the Third Circuit
Background: Jayne Nathanson started taking classes at the Medical College of Pennsylvania (MCP) on September 4 th , 1985. On September 10 th , she met with the assistant Dean for Medical Education, Dr. Marilyn Appel, because she was having unexpected pain in her classes due to her seating arrangement. Nathanson claimed to have “severe” muscle spasms in her back and shoulders because of the shape of the chairs at MCP. Next, Nathanson met with the Dean, Dr. Andrew Beasley. In her first meeting with the Dean, Nathanson made no specific requests to try and alleviate her problems. However, Nathanson states that in a second meeting with the Dean, she did specifically request a chair and a table of sufficient height so she would not have to lean over to take notes or exams. She claims that this simple accommodation could have stopped her muscle spasms. According to Nathanson, after Beasley failed to accommodate her requests, she requested a one-year deferment of enrollment. Dean Beasley states that Nathanson never requested a unique seating arrangement and that she only requested the delayed enrollment.
Regarding Nathanson’s Rehabilitation Act claim, summary judgment for
the
defendants was reversed. This court believed that it was reasonable to
expect
that MCP knew that Nathanson had a disability that was affecting
her
ability to continue classes at MCP. Furthermore, the court believed
that
reasonable accommodations were not granted to Nathanson.
There were three allegations regarding Nathanson’s tortious claims: 1)
She
claims that MCP violated Sec. 504 when they intervened with her
acceptance at
Georgetown University by informing Georgetown of Nathanson’s
matriculation at
MCP; 2) a violation of Pennsylvania law by interfering with Nathanson’s
contractual relationship with Georgetown; and 3) violation of
Pennsylvania
state law by interfering with her prospective relationships with other
medical
schools.
No portion of the Rehabilitation Act addresses interference from one
party with
a third party regarding a person with a disability and their desire to
attend a
school. Thus, the first part of the claim was not stable.
Next, MCP did not break any
Finally, Nathanson did not establish the four elements required for
intentional
tortious interference, and the District Court was correct with the
judgment in
favor of the defendants.
In conclusion, the judgment
regarding the Rehabilitation Act was
reversed. The
judgment regarding tortious interference was affirmed. (Something
doesn’t make sense
here. We don’t
really know what disability Nathanson alleged, and there’s no
explanation of
what MCP actually did regarding
2. John
Doe, Appellee V. National Board of
Medical Examiners, Appellant
For the Third
Circuit
Summary: John Doe, a fourth year medical student who experienced Multiple Sclerosis, received accommodations to take the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE). The National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) provides this exam. Doe received accommodations on steps 1 and 2, including extra time to complete the exam. For those who receive accommodations, the NBME annotates results that are mailed to institutions explaining that accommodations were made for the test-taker. The NBME denied Doe’s request to remove this annotation from his results. Doe asserted that the annotation would influence discrimination against him based on his disability. The District Court held that Doe could support that the flagging of his scores with the annotation explaining accommodation will cause irreparable harm when applying to medical residency programs and granted preliminary injunction. However, the Court of Appeals ruled to vacate this ruling stating that Doe had not proven that he will be irreparably harmed with the annotation shown on his test results.
1. Lisa
Kaltenberger, Plaintiff-Appellant V.
For the Sixth Circuit
Background: The Plaintiff asserted that she was
misdiagnosed by
the counseling services at the
2. Michael
Gonzales, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. National Board of Medical Examiners,
Defendant-Apellee
For the Sixth
Circuit
Summary: Gonzales was appealing the District
Court’s decision to deny his request
for preliminary injunctive relief under the
After
two
evaluations
by different psychologists, there was a difference of opinion as to
whether or
not Gonzales did, in deed, have a disability. In one evaluation it was
the psychologist’s
opinion that Gonzales experienced a learning disability, showing
significant
difficulty with auditory sequential processing of information. However,
the
second psychologist opined that Gonzales did not experience a learning
disability or any other disability. Despite this discrepancy, the Court
of
Appeals dealt with a bigger question: is Gonzales disabled under the
definition
of disability in the Americans with Disabilities Act? The court
concluded that
the Plaintiff had no likelihood of success on the merits and that he
would not
be considered disabled under the
1. Richard
R. Rothman, (appellant) V. Emory
University and Richard W. Riley, Secretary of the Department of
Education,
(appellees)
For the
Seventh Circuit
Background: While Richard Rothman was a student at
Emory, he had many meetings with
the Dean of Students at the
After Rothman graduated, he was seeking admission to the
Rothman also made a claim under the Rehabilitation Act stating that he
was put
in a hostile environment while at Emory. These claims were found to be
incomprehensible, based on findings that the examples given by Rothman
had
nothing to do with his epilepsy. Rothman further stated that he
understood that
his claims rested on his own perceptions of Emory’s motivations and
that he had
no direct evidence.
For the reasons stated above, the United States Court of Appeals for
the
seventh circuit affirmed the district court’s order for summary
judgment.
1.
Ari Karl Stern, (appellant) V.
For the Eighth Circuit
Background: When Mr. Stern enrolled in medical school, he informed the proper authorities of his learning disability, dyslexia. Mr. Stern also requested specific the accommodation of supplementing his answers on any multiple choice exam, with either essay answers or oral reporting. He stated that he was entitled to this accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The University made the following accommodations to Stern: another party read the multiple choice questions to Stern on an audiotape, allow him to take the test in seclusion, away from his classmates, and additional time to complete the test. These accommodations are sufficient under the law; furthermore, the University asserts that it never told Stern he would be allowed the specific accommodations that he requested. Mr. Stern proceeded to contend that the accommodations provided were insufficient, and thus caused him to fail. Thus, he had been discriminated against based upon his disability.
The professional opinion of an unbiased psychologist was requested. The psychologist stated that any difficulties with test taking from dyslexia could be remedied with accommodations such as administration of the exam in an oral form (such as from an audiotape), the ability to take the exam in a separate room and extended time to take the test.
Based on this statement, the text in the Americans with Disabilities
Act and
the Rehabilitation Act, as well as the fact that the University
provided
appropriate accommodations, the grant of summary judgment for the
University
has been affirmed.
2. Guy
Amir,
Appellant,
For the Eigth Circuit
Summary: Amir matriculated at St. Louis University (SLU) in the fall of 1991. During his first year, Amir began to experience academic difficulties. After failing biochemistry and anatomy exams, Amir requested to be allowed to enter the extended curriculum program. The extended curriculum program allowed students to complete the first year of course work in twice the amount of time. His request was denied. After he continued to perform poorly on exams, SLU offered Amir the opportunity to either participate in the extended curriculum program or take a leave of absence. Amir chose to take a leave of absence. Amir returned as a first year student the following fall.
In his third year of medical school, Amir began to suffer from
irrational
thoughts and was diagnosed as having severe Obsessive Compulsive
Disorder
(OCD). One physician urged Amir to seek treatment in a residential
hospital.
Although Amir opposed the idea, he voluntarily committed himself to a
hospitalization. After he was released from the hospital, he was denied
re-admittance to the program he was in before he left. Amir contended
that he
was discriminated against based upon his disability, in violation of
Title II
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation
Act and Missouri State Law. The District Court granted summary judgment
for the
defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s summary
judgment
regarding the disability discrimination and reasonable accommodations
claims;
however, regarding the retaliation claims, the Court of Appeals has
reversed
and remanded this matter to the District Court for further proceedings.
1. Andrew
H.K. Wong, (appellant) V. The Regents of the Order and
For the Ninth Circuit
Summary: Andrew Wong sued Regents after he was
dismissed from the medical school
program. Wong asserted that the denial of an accommodation that had
been granted
on previous occasions contributed to a failing grade in his Pediatrics
clerkship. The University’s
2.
Sherrie Lynn Zukle, Plaintiff-Appellee V.
For the Ninth Circuit
Background: The Plaintiff immediately started
experiencing
academic difficulties after her matriculation at
Zukle requested additional
accommodations
including interruption of a clerkship, time off from clerkship
responsibilities
to prepare for exams and time off before each clerkship for reading.
Under the
1. Corine Ware, (appellant) V.
For the Tenth Circuit
Summary: Plaintiff, Corine Ware, is appealing the
judgment
passed down from the United States District of Wyoming granting summary
judgment to the defendant and denying Ware’s motion for summary
judgment
regarding action alleging that the University violated the Americans
with
Disabilities Act as well as some civil rights statutes and the
Constitution.
Based on the review of the United States Court of Appeals for the tenth
circuit, no error in judgment was found. Granting of summary judgment
in favor
of the defendants is affirmed. No further detail is given in report.
2. Joshua
Pushkin, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellee V. The Regents of the University of
Coloradol
the
For the Tenth Circuit
Summary: Dr. Pushkin, a medical doctor, alleged
that the
It was the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that
the
record supported the trial court decision. The entire future of Dr.
Pushkin was
at stake. The court determined that the reasoning of the Circuit Court
was
based on adequate factual grounds and judgment was affirmed.
3. Kevin
McGuinness, Plaintiff-Appellant V.
For the Tenth Circuit (summary judgment)
Background: Mr. McGuinness entered the University of New Mexico Medical School in 1992. When he enrolled, he told the University that he had an anxiety disorder that could be exacerbated by his studies. However, he specified that he would not need any accommodations. The University has a unique grading system that doesn’t function with traditional letter grades. Instead, the University uses a ranking system with levels such as “marginal,” and “satisfactory.” According to the University’s academic guidelines, if a student receives a grade of “marginal” in more than 15% of their classes, the student must retake the entire first year curriculum again. Mr. McGuinness received grades of “marginal” in his biochemistry course and in cardiovascular/pulmonary. He retook tests in cardiovascular/pulmonary three times and still did not receive grades of “satisfactory.” He declined to retake his biochemistry exam to try and change his grade.
McGuinness filed a claim under the
Under the
1. Trena
Ferrell, Plaintiff V.
Background: Trena Ferrell completed her first two
years of
medical school at
The court found that Ferrell
sued
the wrong
entity. The NBME would be the proper entity to challenge regarding
these
circumstances. Furthermore, for this case to remain substantive, the
Plaintiff
had to prove a number of things to make these assertions under the
1.
Garey V. Ellis, Plaintiff V.
Georgia,
Summary: Ellis matriculated the Morehouse School of
Medicine, a private school in
Beyond
his first two
years, Ellis did not receive any accommodations and received
unsatisfactory
grades including a D and an F in two classes. Ellis was dismissed from
the
medical school. Ellis appealed this decision stating that he was never
made
aware of accommodations he could receive during his final years at the
medical
school. The medical school held the opinion that there were no
accommodations
that it could make to sufficiently assist Ellis to complete the
curriculum.
Ellis sued Morehouse under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA)
and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Summary judgment was granted
for the
Defendants on Title II of the
1.
Biank V. National Board of Medical Examiners
Summary: A fourth year medical student with dyslexia alleged that the board violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by refusing to provide him with double time for taking the second step of a three-step examination that he was required to pass in order to obtain a medical license. Biank sought permanent mandatory injunctive relief to require the granting of his request for double time on the exam.
The court found that Biank failed to show that he would be irreparably
harmed
if he were to take the exam without accommodation. The court considered
the
fact that he took Step one of the exam without accommodations and
passed.
Furthermore, Biank couldn’t support his allegation that a low, but
passing
score would limit his ability to obtain the medical residency program
of his
choice. Thus, his request for mandatory injunctive relief was denied.
1. Michael
Agranoff, Plaintiff V. Law School Admission Council, Inc., Defendant
United
states District Court
Background: The Plaintiff requested two specific accommodations when preparing to take the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT): he asked to take the writing part using a computer and for extra time. Agranoff had a disability called focal dystonia, which causes severe cramping and fatigue of the hand after writing. Plaintiff would not experience the symptoms of this disability to such an extent when using a computer to take the test. He requested extra time for highlighting, underlining and diagramming the questions. These are all techniques taught to students preparing to take the LSAT. The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) only granted the former accommodation. Agranoff insisted this would cause him irreparable harm because he would have to take the exam at a later date, causing harm to his application for law school and because he had taken great measures to prepare for the exam.
Under the
2. Rachel
Darian, Plaintiff, V.
Summary: Rachel Darian, a fourth year nursing student, sued the University of Massachusetts under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act and Title IX (of what?), alleging discrimination based on her pregnancy. The University motioned for summary judgment.
The
issues in question were weather Darian
was disabled within the meaning of the
1. Dr. Kristi Rossomando, Plaintiff V. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska and Peter Spalding, Director of the Postgraduate Orthodontic Program, in His Individual and Official Capacity, Defendants
Background: Rossomando enrolled in Postgraduate
Orthodontic Program in the
Rossomando has a visual impairment that affects her depth perception called alternating strabismus. Prior to July of 1996, she never informed anyone of her disability or that she would need any accommodation. As part of her remediation, she was instructed to receive a visual examination because some of her peers had noticed that she positioned herself in closer proximity than others to her patients. The Ophthalmologist prescribed “loops,” for Rossomando. Loops are magnifying lenses. Dr. Spalding specifically mentioned to Rossomando that they expect her to wear her loops during clinic. At the Grade Appeals Committee, Rossomando specifically stated that she needed no other accommodations than her loops and that her visual impairment would not affect her ability to complete her remedial exercises.
Rossomando’s due process claims were both denied. Even giving the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, the court could find no evidence to support her claim that the defendants acted irrationally or with bad faith or ill will. Also, the plaintiff was given warnings that she may be dismissed if her performance did not improve.
Rossomando’s
claim
under the
1. Stewart Coddington, Plaintiff, V.
Adelphi
University, Adelphi University Board of Trustees, James A. Norton,
individually
as president of Adelphi University, and Mathew Goldstein, individually
and as
president of Adelphi University, and Caryle G. Wolahan, individually
and as
Dean of the Adelphi School of Nursing and Carol A. Lomanno,
individually and as
Associate Professor of the Adelphi School of Nursing, Defendants
The
Summary: Coddington sued the defendants for alleged
violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York Education Law and the
state
contract law based on his learning disabilities. Specifically, each of
the
defendants was alleged to have violated: 1) the Americans with
Disabilities Act;
2) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 3) the New York
Education Law
and , 4) a contract between defendants and plaintiff. Lomanno was the
only
defendant who was not alleged to have breached a contract with the
plaintiff. A
motion to dismiss all claims was made by the defendants. The motion to
dismiss
the
1. Jacqueline
Leacock, Civil Action, V.
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. No. 97-7850
Summary: Leacock matriculated
1. Sarah
Boyle, Plaintiff V.
Background: The Plaintiff at no point in time revealed that she experienced chronic fatigue syndrome. However, she did receive accommodations in select courses. These accommodations included extra time on tests and the ability to take tests in a separate room. Some of her professors questioned the use of these accommodations after the Plaintiff complained that the accommodations were unfair. The professors raised questions about Boyle’s emotional stability. Boyle was offered the choice of seeking an independent psychiatric evaluation or going before the Impaired Medical Students Committee. She refused both and filed a lawsuit.
On Boyle’s first allegation, the court found in favor of the
Defendants. The
court found that an
1. Bryan
David Price, Brian A. Singleton,
and
Stephan M. Morris, Plaintiffs V. The National Board of Medical
Examiners,
Defendant
Background: The three plaintiffs argued that they were
entitled to certain
accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act because they
experienced ADHD and/or written expression disability and reading
disorder.
While the accommodations requested are granted under the
Each plaintiff claimed to have ADHD and two out of three of them also claimed to have Reading Disorder and Disorder of Written Expression. Our first plaintiff, Mr. Price, had no treatment for his ADHD until 1994 when he was diagnosed and treated with medication. Prior to his diagnosis, he completed high school with a 3.4 GPA and received no accommodations in doing so.
Our
second Plaintiff, Mr. Singleton, was entered into the Talented and
Gifted
program in second grade and remained in the program through out his
high school
career. He graduated with a 4.2 GPA and was the state Debate Champion.
Mr.
Singleton also earned a degree in Physics from
Finally, the third plaintiff, Mr. Morris, was an honor student in high school and earned a 3.5 GPA in college while working on his prerequisites for medical school. Mr. Morris was then admitted to medical school. Again, all of this was accomplished without any accommodations.
Taking this information into account, and the fact that accommodations such as the fact that extended time to take examinations has not been proven to benefit persons with ADHD, the court denied plaintiffs’ requests for accommodations and denies their request for attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation.
1. Jonathon
Lewin, Plaintiff V.
United States
Virginia,
Discussion: Breach of Contract, The court found no substantive legal
argument for
dismissing the claim for breach of contract.
Due Process,
Procedural and
Substantive, The
Plaintiff asserted that his due process rights were not adhered to
because
proceedings were contaminated with malice and ill will on the faculty’s
part.
When discussing Procedural and Substantive Due Process, first, there
needs to
be a distinction as to whether the dismissal was related to academic or
disciplinary issues and assurance that the dismissal is not
significantly
different from the norms of other dismissals. It appeared to the court
that the
Plaintiff’s dismissal was related to his unimpressive record and was
not
abnormal in any way. Thus, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss was
granted.
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA), The Plaintiff
alleged that six different parts of
FERPA were violated, some of which included, denying the Plaintiff the
right to
the assistance of counsel at the Committee’s meeting, refusing to
provide Plaintiff a “meaningful opportunity” to contest his grades and
“resolving” Plaintiff’s grade appeals before he filed them. The court
found
that this case was within the scope of FERPA and that the Plaintiff
should be
protected under FERPA. Thus, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss was
denied.
Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of
1973, Lewin stated
discrimination
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 because the
Defamation, Finally, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendants defamed him by publicly announcing that he failed an exam. The Defendants stated that this claim should have been dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired. The Court found that, in fact, the statute of limitations had not expired and that the claim was within reason. Thus, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
W.D. Virginia,
Background:
The
court
dismissed
1. Zelda
Kim Zevator, Plaintiff, V. Methodist
Southern District of Texas,
Background: Zevator was a staff nurse in the Psychiatry Department of Methodist Hospital. She had direct patient contact and was required to lift patients, help them to walk, help them with hygiene and had to stand on her feet all day. In 1990, Zevator experienced a series of accidents causing one of her knees to eventually require surgery. Zevator took some time off over the course of the occurrences and eventually returned to work, requesting relief from some of the physical requirements of her job. For the next two years, the Plaintiff had more surgeries and took more time off to recover from them. In between her stays at the hospital as a patient, she was given a light duty desk job. Zevator requested a different desk job and soon after, handed in her resignation. Zevator then filed the lawsuit. The Defendants filed for summary judgment. The Defendant’s motion was granted for a number of reasons: 1) the court determined that the state-law statutory claim was untimely; 2) the ADA claims occurred before the effective date of the ADA, and the ADA is not retroactive; 3) the Plaintiff was not qualified to perform the essential functions of her job; 4) finally, there is no evidence that the Plaintiff was forced to resign from her position.
1.
Supreme Court of
Background: Plaintiff-appellant, Cheryl Fischer,
sought admission to medical school
after completing her baccalaureate degree. All medical schools belong
to the
Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). One of the standards
for
It
was brought to the committee’s attention that there is a record of a
blind
student completing medical school. Dr. David W. Hartman, a
psychiatrist,
attended and graduated from
Fischer
applied a second time to the medical school and was again denied.
Following her
second denial, she filed a complaint with the OCRC alleging
discrimination
based solely on her disability. The OCRC found that CWRU did not
accumulate
enough related information to sufficiently ascertain whether or not
Fischer
could, in fact, complete the curriculum. Finding that CWRU did
discriminate
against Fischer, OCRC issued a “cease and desist” order to admit
Fischer into
the next class. The decision was affirmed by the
This
court found that
Thus,
Fischer and
Hartman failed to show that with reasonable accommodations, the medical
program
at CWRU could be completed satisfactorily. It was found that the
accommodations
that
1. The
Board
of Education of the City of
1. Betts,
Plaintiff V. Rector and Visitors of
Background: Betts was admitted to the