16 Comments

Simple solution. Let Little Miss ADA complete dental school and the let her only patients be the judge, members of the jury and the plaintiff attorney. They might just change their minds.

Guess this is why we have a mechanism for appeals.

The request for summary judgement is fascinating. The student more likely has a personality disorder than ADHD (or the ADHD is coexisting-given that the diagnosis came from a psychiatrist who was a neighbor – no conflict of intrest?). It is very telling that professors resign rather than make accomodations for the student (the ADA detail that is often forgotten/ignored – reasonable accomodation). Her actions are very manipulative throughout the course of her education and the administration went well beyond what they should have had to even consider.

Unfortunately, but understandibly, these cases strike fear into the heart of professional education schools and training programs – school make excessive accomodation for a student who isn’t performing adequeately and then when things go south (usually do) they get sued – and successfully!

“Reasonable Accommodation” now means, “only the accommodation demanded by the individual.”

The same Plaintiffs’ bar that won her the $$ will extract it back once she loses a malpractice case. Here’s hoping she doesn’t seriously injure or kill someone in the interim.

one has to appreciate the self-employment potential of a profession which has insured it profits from accomodating those who can’t perform the task, as well as those who suffer from the services provided by those who can’t perform the contracted task. Makes we want to wallpaper with BAR admissions for the sheer employment potential.

What Bumper said. Let her perform a root canal on anybody that thinks that she should be a DDS.

Wow. Going through that MSJ gives me a greater appreciation for the University of Michigan dental school.

They bent over backwards to accommodate her and she just couldn’t hack it. Her inability to perform adequately in her clinical duties ultimately sank her. I certainly would not want her to work on my teeth!

I would like to see the order denying the defendants’ MSJ.

I found the court’s opinion on Lexis. The court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on all but two counts.

The court found that the plaintiff had created an issue of material fact as to alleged due process violations.

2. Due Process Violation

HN7Go to the description of this Headnote.With regard to student dismissals, procedural due process requires (1) that a student be informed of their academic situation and (2) that the decision must be careful and deliberate. Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 85. “In the case of an academic dismissal or suspension from a state educational institution, when the student has been fully informed of the faculty’s dissatisfaction with the student’s academic [*17] progress and when the decision to, dismiss was careful and deliberate, the Fourteenth Amendment’s procedural due process requirement has been met.” Ku, 322 F.3d at 436 (emphasis added). 5

FOOTNOTES

5 The analysis of substantive due process is much narrower than procedural due process in the academic setting. To find a violation of substantive due process, Plaintff is required to prove a “substantial departure from accepted academic norms so as to demonstrate that the person or committee responsible did not actually exercise professional judgment.” Ewing, 474 U.S. at 225. As Plaintiff has met the evidentiary burden for summary judgment on her procedural due process claim, this analysis is not necessary.

Here, Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to show a material issue over the requirement that the student be “fully informed … of the faculty’s dissatisfaction with her clinical progress and the danger that this posed to timely graduation and continued enrollment,” Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 89-90. Plaintiff has offered evidence indicating that though she was informed of the failing grades she received and her placement on probation, Plaintiff was never sent the letter that the board resolved to [*18] send in May 2005 indicating their dissatisfaction with her progress and outlining the consequences to Plaintiff. Thus, it would be reasonable to conclude from Plaintiff’s evidence that the Academic Review Board’s decision to recommend dismissal, emanating from an unscheduled and apparently informal meeting, came without adequate notice to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s evidence similarly creates a question of fact as to whether the Academic Review Board’s decision was the result of “careful deliberation” and “focused professional judgment.” Ku, 322 F.3d at 438. Plaintiff has presented facts and testimony that could establish bias (if not animus) on the part of Defendant Lantz. Plaintiff has further provided evidence of Defendant Lantz’s prominent role in Plaintiff’s dismissal and Defendant Lantz’s activities on behalf of the Academic Review Board (e.g., that Defendant Lantz was tasked with sending Plaintiff the letter stating the faculty’s concerns, and the letter was never sent to Plaintiff). Additionally, Plaintiff has offered testimony that Defendant Lantz solicited negative letters from faculty members — going so far as to edit Defendant Burgett’s and physically type Defendant Piskorowski’s [*19] — and that Defendant Lantz called the impromptu June 16, 2005 meeting at which Plaintiff was dismissed. Finally, Plaintiff’s has submitted other evidence — such as the discrepancy between Plaintiff’s grades and Plaintiff’s post hoc written evaluations — which supports Plaintiff’s theory that dismissal was made in bad faith.

Plaintiff’s cumulative evidence surrounding Defendant Lantz is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to both the information provided to Plaintiff and the careful deliberation of the Academic Review Board with regard to Plaintiff’s dismissal. Plaintiff’s due process claim therefore survives summary judgment, and Defendants’ motion will be denied as to Counts II and V.

Full opinion here:

http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=1006944&da=y

I think I am going to go to my local NBA franchise and demand a tryout. I will then insist that they accomodate my special needs (lack of height, strength, agility, quickness, and knowlege of the game) by lowering the net to six feet and allowing me to play by myself without being guarded and with a smaller ball that I can handle. When I still can’t make the team, I’ll sue for millions.

Maybe one of you lawyers can tell me why my plan is ludicrous and Ms. Zwick’s actions are defensible. We scoff at the idea that someone should be allowed to play a GAME for which they have no ability, yet we accept the idea that anyone, anyone can become a doctor or a dentist or any other profession. Clearly this woman cannot become a dentist, and yet she will. And she will probably be allowed to set up a practice somewhere, where an unsuspecting public will be forced to bear considerable risk. Until she hurts somebody, which she certainly will. Also, this story is a lesson to those who complain that the medical professions do not adequately police themselves. How can we?

Chill JJ, she is now going for a masters in speech pathology, which may be even more unnerving given that she will really freak out when she discovers she can’t just rip out the patient’s tongue when she can’t cure their lisp.

We joke, and yes, the image of an insane person brandishing sharp implements when she cannot identify cavities, ulcers, and “only” failed 7 courses is kind of humours, like a Monty Python skit.

But you know, all humor aside, it must be heartbreaking for the dentists involved.

Imagine devoting your life to dentistry. Imagine all the hours and years of study, training and practice. Imagine all the pain and suffering you alleviated by helping people (before modern dentistry, having a toothache could be life-altering).

And how are these dentists treated?

We confiscate years of their salary. Based on what? On allegations by an obviously delusional individual, one whom a rational person would not trust to be a housekeeper much less a dentist.

Does anyone share my sadness and my horror about this situation? I have never read of a lawsuit whose facts were so clearcut, whose defendants so honorable, and whose outcome so vicious.

It’s interesting that the faculty from the University of Michigan Dental School would allow this so-called “incompetent” student to maintain a “B” average and then try to convince the public that she’s a gold digger for blowing the whistle on Dr. Lantz who obviously had her own agenda. Lantz actually typed up one of the critique/letters she asked a Dental School professor to submit to build a case against expelling the Plaintiff?? We, as taxpayers, are supposed to accept that people in authority inside the University are granted the right to act in this way by virtue of the fact that they hold an advanced degree in “education?” Who was the brainic who hired and then supported Lantz? How ironic. Perhaps the University will have a lessons-learned about how to treat people… never mind, they know it all already. From the outside, it’s certainly interesting to read about how people inside the Ivory Tower justify their actions. These are the people who are supposed to be preparing young adults to become “professionals?” Another irony! The University should face the music and pay the imposed fine. An impartial jury wasn’t impressed with what these faculty members know about the field of dentistry, but the fact that they (Lantz & company) didn’t know how to treat a student in a humane fashion must have been evident to them as it is to those of us from the “outside.”

I do ADA cases and Section 1983 cases for a living, defense side. For all you people who think the judgment was excessive, that is one thing. But based on the court’s opinion on summary judgment, Zwick got jammed. Violations of procedures, lying to faculty members about her requested accomodation, unnannounced meetings, hand-picked evaluators to slam the student . . . whether you would bring your kid to see Zwick or not is NOT the issue. The issue is whether she was treated fairly and the jury said no. File the appeal and settle for 80 cents on the dollar.

The student claimed she was not able to perform clinical examinations except in a private room because she could not perform when she was “distracted.” That should be enough for the a reasonable person to find she should not be a dentist.

How can you be a dentist if you cannot concentrate?

“It’s interesting that the faculty from the University of Michigan Dental School would allow this so-called “incompetent” student to maintain a “B” average”

A “B” average in dental school puts you at the bottom of the curve. I don’t know about UMich specifically, but typically you must maintain a B average to be in good standing.

Also, the grades one receives during the first two years of school are from classroom courses, she was kick out due to her inability to perform in the clinic. The former and the latter obviously require vastly different skill sets.

Good for Ms. Zwick.

It seems our universities are plagued with overpaid, incompetent babyboomer profs who try to impose on their students, standards and injustices, they would not meet or tolerate, respectively.

It is high time that courts gave students the right to sue for breach of conract and educational practice – the system is in serious need
of a clean up, and this requires an accountability that is sorely lacking.