Webster v. Rutgers-N.j. Med. Sch.

LLOYD A. WEBSTER JR., M.D., Plaintiff, v. RUTGERS-NEW JERSEY MEDICAL SCHOOL, DR. ROBERT L. BARCHI, DR. ROBERT L. JOHNSONand JOHN and JANE DOES NO. 1-10, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 15-08689

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

August 4, 2017

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court by way of the above-captioned Defendants' motion for summary judgment.¹ D.E. 47. The Court reviewed all submissions made in support and opposition,² and considered the motion without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) and L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Pro se Plaintiff Lloyd A. Webster Jr. matriculated to Rutgers New Jersey Medical School's ("NJMS" or the "School") four-year Doctor of Medicine program in August 2007 as an anticipated member of the class of 2011. Defendants' Undisputed Statement of Material Facts ("DSOF") ¶ 1 (D.E. 47-2). NJMS maintains academic policies and requirements for all of its students, including the. School's (i) Promotion Policy, (ii) United States Medical Licensing Exam Step-1 and Step-2 Policy ("USMLE Policy"), and (iii) Standards of Professionalism (the "Professionalism Policy"). Id. ¶ 3.

Under the Professionalism Policy, School administrators may submit a professionalism form (the "Professionalism Form(s)" or "Form(s)") to address any instances where a student has demonstrated a lapse in professionalism. Id. ¶ 7. The Professionalism Policy states, in relevant part: "If a student receives two or more forms in the third/fourth years then the student is required to appear before the [Committee on Student Affairs³ ("CSA")] and the forms, the professional development plan(s), and the meeting with the CSA will be mentioned in the [student's] [Medical Student Performance Evaluation ("MSPE")]." An MSPE is a customized letter for each student that is prepared by the School and filed as a mandatory and integral component of the national medical residency "match" program. Declaration of Dr. James M. Hill ("Hill Dec") ¶ 14 (D.E. 47-3). Plaintiff received NJMS's Professionalism Policy upon his matriculation to NJMS and was familiar with its content. DSOF ¶ 10.

On May 4, 2009, the CSA held a meeting where it reviewed a list of members of the class of 2011 who had completed their pre-clerkship training and were eligible for a promotion to third-year student status. Hill Dec. Ex. D. Plaintiff's name was included on the list. Id. At the meeting, the CSA voted unanimously to approve the list of the 2011 class members, including Plaintiff, to be promoted to third-year student status. Id. Ex. E. On June 2, 2009, the Faculty Council unanimously passed a motion to accept the minutes of the May 4, 2009 CSA meeting. Id. Ex. F.

In order to be eligible to begin a clinical clerkship, NJMS students must pass the USMLE Step-1. Webster Dec. Ex. Y. Initially, Plaintiff's deadline to take the USMLE Step-1 was May 25, 2009. Hill Dec. ¶ 21. Plaintiff requested, and was granted, several extensions to delay his exam date to May 28, 2010.⁴ DSOF ¶ 16. On May 28, 2010, Julie Ferguson, the Assistant Dean for Student Affairs, emailed Plaintiff asking whether he took the USMLE Step-1. Hill Dec. Ex. J. Three days later, Plaintiff responded that he was taking care of his ill grandmother in Texas and that he had canceled his exam appointment as a result. Id. Plaintiff notes that on May 23, 2010 he informed Dr. Soto-Greene, the Vice Dean and Supervisor of the NJMS Office of Student Affairs, that he would be leaving to care for his grandmother, but he also concedes that he did not explicitly say that he would be unable to sit for the exam on May 28. Declaration of Lloyd A. Webster ("Webster Dec") Ex. R.

On June 15, 2010, NJMS issued Plaintiff his first Professionalism Form. Hill Dec. Ex. J. The Form stated that Plaintiff "cannot be relied upon to complete assigned tasks by the given deadline." Id. More specifically, the Form explained that Plaintiff "did not sit for the [USMLE] Step 1 by the required deadline and did not communicate with NJMS administration regarding this in a timely and direct manner." Id.

On June 12, 2012, Plaintiff received his second Professionalism Form for failing to comply with the School's immunization requirements. DSOF ¶ 19. At this time, Plaintiff was still a third-year student at NJMS.⁵ Id. ¶ 20. The Form indicated that Plaintiff "needs continual reminders in the fulfillment of administrative responsibilities" and that Plaintiff "cannot be relied upon to complete assigned tasks by the given deadline." Hill Dec. Ex. M. Pursuant to the Professionalism Policy, the School was required to reference Plaintiff's receipt of both Forms in his MSPE because, in the School's view, both Forms were issued after Plaintiff had been promoted to third-year status.

On June 26, 2012, Plaintiff was informed via email that if he "would like to appeal the [School's Professionalism] [P]olicy and request that [the Professionalism Forms] not be included in [his] MSPE [he] must do so at" the CSA meeting on July 2, 2012. Id. Ex. N. Plaintiff advised the School that he intended to appeal the application of the Professionalism Policy that required reference of the two forms in his MSPE. DSOF ¶ 23.

Near the end of June 2012, Dr. James M. Hill, the Associate Dean for Student Affairs, was scheduled to meet with Plaintiff to assist him in preparing for the upcoming appeal before the CSA. DSOF ¶ 23. Plaintiff did not appear for the meeting with Dr. Hill. Hill Dec. Ex. N. As a result, Dr. Hill adjourned Plaintiff's appeal to the August CSA meeting rather than the July meeting. Id. On July 13, 2012, Plaintiff met with Dr. Hill. Webster Dec. Ex. S.

On July 31 and August 10, 2012, Plaintiff wrote letters to the CSA asking that the two Professionalism Forms not be included in his MSPE. Webster Dec. Exs. U & V. In the first letter, Plaintiff stated that his first Form "was issued during [the] pre-clerkship period of [his] education" and the second Form "was issued during the clerkship period of [his] education." Id. Ex. U.According to Plaintiff, Dr. Hill "threatened disciplinary action, unless [Plaintiff] removed any mention as to the fact that he received one [P]rofessionalism [F]orm in the pre-clerkship years and another [P]rofessionalism [F]orm in the clerkship years." Webster Dec. ¶ 44. Plaintiff explains that Dr. Hill told him that Plaintiff could only contest the reasons why the Professionalism Forms were filed, and not whether Plaintiff was a second or third-year student when the first Form was issued. Id. ¶ 45. Thereafter, Plaintiff sent the second letter to the CSA and did not include any reference to whether he was a second or third-year student when he received the first Professionalism Form.

On August 10, Plaintiff appeared before the CSA and presented his case as to why the Professionalism Forms should not be included in his MSPE. Hill De. Ex. R. After considering Plaintiff's presentation and letters, the CSA voted to reject Plaintiff's request. Id. Ex. Q. On August 13, the CSA sent a letter to Plaintiff memorializing its decision. Id. The letter also indicated that Plaintiff could submit a written appeal of the CSA's decision to the Dean of NJMS by August 24, 2012. Id.

On August 24, Plaintiff appealed the CSA's decision by writing a letter to Dr. Robert L. Johnson ("Dean Johnson"). Id. Ex. R. Plaintiff indicated that "there [was] information that [he] did not disclose to the [CSA], which [he] believe[s] change the dynamics of this situation." Id. Plaintiff, however, did not indicate in the letter what that information was. On September 13, 2012, Dean Johnson responded by requesting that Plaintiff provide a more specific explanation in support of his appeal. DSOF ¶ 28. On September 27, 2012, Plaintiff wrote Dean Johnson a second letter contesting, in more detail, the CSA's determinations. Id. ¶ 29. In neither the August 24 nor September 27 letters did Plaintiff assert that the first Professionalism Form was issued while he was a second-year student. According to Plaintiff, he did not do so because he believed that hewas "still restricted by Dr. Hill's threat." Webster Dec. ¶ 48. On January 9, 2013, by way of letter, Dean Johnson denied Plaintiff's appeal. Hill Dec. Ex. U.

In the fall of 2013, NJMS prepared final MSPEs for all of its students, including Plaintiff, who were expected to graduate in the spring of 2014, in connection with their applications to post-graduate residency programs. DSOF ¶ 31. On October 9, 2013, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Dr. Soto-Greene asking that the School amend his MSPE. Hill. Dec. Ex. V. Plaintiff requested that the answer to the question "Was the student the recipient of any adverse action(s) by the medical school or its parent institution?" be changed from "Yes" to "No." Id. Plaintiff also maintained that the receipt of his first Professionalism Form was prior to commencing his third year of school and therefore should not be included in his MSPE. Id. On October 10, 2013, NJMS provided Plaintiff with an amended MSPE, which answered "No" as to whether Plaintiff had faced any adverse action from the School. Hill Dec. Ex. W at 2. However, the "Summary" section of the MSPE was changed to indicate that Plaintiff received two Professionalism Forms, the reasons why he received those forms, and that Plaintiff had appeared before the CSA. Id. at 5. This information was moved from the "Academic History" section to the "Summary" section which was located towards the end of the MSPE. Id. On October 16, 20, and 22 Plaintiff again challenged the reference to his Professionalism Forms in the revised MSPE by sending emails to Dr. Soto-Greene. Hill Dec. Exs. X-Z; DSOF ¶ 34. On October 22, Dr. Soto-Greene responded that the MSPE provided to Plaintiff on October 10 was accurate and would be placed in his permanent academic...