Goetz v. Sherman

James Goetz v. Paul Sherman, D.C. et al

Nos. CV156053034S, CV156049996S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield, Bridgeport

November 8, 2017

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Dale W. Radcliffe, J.

FACTS

The Plaintiff, James Goetz, brings these consolidated actions against the University of Bridgeport, and several employees. On October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a pleading designated Fourth Amended Complaint, which consolidated both of the actions.

The operative complaint pleads claims against the University of Bridgeport, Dr. Frank Zolli, D.C., the Dean of the University of Bridgeport College of Chiropractic (UBCC), and Chair of the Disciplinary Committee, Paul Sherman, D.C., Dean of UBCC and Dr. Hans Van der Giessen, Provost of the University of Bridgeport.

In 2010, James Goetz, a resident of New Jersey, was admitted to the College of Chiropractic. He attended the University of Bridgeport as a student enrolled in the UBCC between the fall of 2010, and December of 2014, when he was dismissed from the university. Although Goetz claims to have satisfied all of the UBCC academic requirements by December of 2014, the University refused to grant him a degree.

While enrolled as a full-time student, Goetz was arrested in April of 2013. He was charged, pursuant to an indictment in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, with one count of mail fraud, and fifteen counts of wire fraud. Goetz was arrested in April 4, 2013 on the University of Bridgeport campus, with the assistance of campus security personnel.

The arrest received some notoriety in the campus press.

In August of 2013, while a student at UBCC, James Goetz entered into a plea agreement with the United States Attorney. Pursuant to the agreement, he entered a guilty plea to a single-count of mail fraud, and to one count of wire fraud. Both crimes are felonies.

Goetz continued as a student enrolled at the University of Bridgeport, following his guilty pleas. He claims to have discussed his situation with various University of Bridgeport officials. According to Goetz, he was informed by Dr. Anthony Onorato, that he would be permitted to graduate notwithstanding his pleas of guilty, provided that he maintained a " C" grade point average. Other University faculty members, including the Defendant Paul Sherman, D.C., are alleged to have confirmed Goetz' belief that he would be permitted to graduate and obtain a degree, if he remained in good academic standing.

Goetz continued to pay tuition to the University of Bridgeport following his guilty pleas, and attended classes at UBCC. At the urging of Dr. Sherman, he claims to have spent six thousand dollars ($6, 000.) to take and pass an examination given by the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE).

On November 6, 2014, as he was nearing the completion of his studies at UBCC, James Goetz was sentenced to a term of thirty-three (33) months of incarceration, followed by three years of probation. He was also ordered to pay a restitution order of $379, 000 by the District Court.

Prior to the sentencing, UBCC faculty and others affiliated with the University of Bridgeport, submitted letters of recommendation.

Goetz claims that as early as December of 2011, he had discussed his legal problems with University of Bridgeport faculty members. He claims that he was assured that the criminal charges would not interfere with his ability to complete all UBCC course requirements, and that he would be permitted to graduate following the satisfactory completion of all academic requirements

In early November of 2014, an article appeared in " The Ledger" concerning Goetz, and his association with the University of Bridgeport College of Chiropractic (UBCC). The Plaintiff claims that he had completed all of the requirements for graduation, when the article appeared.

On November 8, 2014, following the Ledger article, Goetz was notified that disciplinary proceedings were being commenced against him. It was claimed that his felony convictions placed him in violation of Section 2.18 of the University of Bridgeport Student Handbook. The Handbook reads, in relevant part:

" 2.18 Dismissal from the College

" In addition to the academic proceedings described above, a student will be dismissed from the College upon the occurrence of any of the following . . ."

" . . . Pleading " Guilty" or " No Contest" or being found guilty of any crime involving . . . moral turpitude or which is felonious in nature . . ."

On November 18, James Goetz received an email notifying him that a hearing would be conducted on November 24, 2014. He claims that the notice was improper, and that the hearing should not have proceeded.

Following the November 24 hearing, the Plaintiff was ordered dismissed from school, and was not permitted to graduate from UBCC despite having completed the academic requirements. Some clinical experience had not been completed.

James Goetz appealed the order of dismissal to the Disciplinary Committee, which affirmed the result of the hearing on December 19, 2014.

On December 31, 2014, Dr. Hans Van Der Griessen, the University Provost, affirmed the dismissal from school.

These two actions followed, and a single eleven (11) count complaint was filed. The Fourth Amended Complaint, dated October 2, 2015, applies to both claims.

Counts one through four of the Fourth Amended Complaint allege various breaches of an express contract, while count five alleges a breach of an implied contract.

Count six is a claim of promissory estopped, count seven claims unjust enrichment, and count eight alleges negligent misrepresentation.

Counts nine and ten allege intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress respectively, while count eleven alleges a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).

The Defendants have moved for summary judgment as to all counts claiming that James Goetz cannot prevail against either the University of Bridgeport or any of its employees, as a matter of law.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT--STANDARD OF REVIEW

Connecticut practice book S. 17-49 provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith, if the pleadings, affidavits and other proof submitted demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Miller v. United Technologies Corp., 233 Conn. 732, 744-45, 660 A.2d 810 (1995).

The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to any material fact. D.H.R. Construction Co. v. Donnelly, 180 Conn. 430, 434, 429 A.2d 908 (1980). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Webster Bank v. Oakley, 265 Conn. 539, 545, 830 A.2d 139 (2003). A material fact has been defined as one which will make a difference in the result. Buell Industries, Inc. v. Greater New York Mutual Ins. Co., 259 Conn. 527, 556, 791 A.2d 489 (2002).

The test for granting a motion for summary judgment is whether the moving party would be entitled to a directed verdict on the same facts. Batick v. Seymour, 186 Conn. 632, 647, 443 A.2d 471 (1982).

COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR SET FORTH CLAIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE STUDENT HANDBOOK

In counts one through four of the consolidated complaint, James Goetz claim that the University of Bridgeport, and the UBCC, breached an express contract. He maintains that the Student Handbook represents a contract, and that the University breached the agreement by failing to award him a degree.

He further maintains, that the termination process employed by the University, failed to follow the demands of the Student Handbook, concerning proper notice, and failure to conform to the requirements of due process of law.

Since all of the counts involve claimed breaches of the provisions of the Student Handbook, they will be treated as a single count.

The University first argues, that any contract with James Goetz was a contract involving educational concerns. It cites Gupta v. New Britain General Hospital, 239 Conn. 574, 687 A.2d 111 (1996), for the proposition that courts should defer to academic institutions in these areas.

This claim is not well taken.

Gutpa involved a hospital residency agreement between a physician and the institution. The plaintiff, a surgical resident, was dismissed during his final year of residency, before completing the training program. The determination to dismiss the doctor involved an alleged inability to make decisions in the operating room (OR), an unwillingness to accept responsibility for errors, and deficiencies in his general ability as a surgeon.

The surgeon argued that his contract was one of employment, not education. The Supreme Court disagreed.

The Court determined that judicial interference was inappropriate, where specialized bodies, such as an accreditation council, were making decisions involving professional competence, and fitness to practice medicine. The decisions required concerned special training and expertise, and courts were admonished to tread cautiously in these areas. Gupta v. New Britain General Hospital, supra, 592.

Here, the Plaintiff claims that UBCC breached its contract with him. However, he makes no challenge to the manner in which he was evaluated, and no challenge has been raised by the University concerning Goetz' academic performance while enrolled at UBCC. The adequacy of the academic program offered by the University is not questioned in this litigation.

Furthermore the rule announced in Gutpa is not absolute. It does not apply in...