Bosch v. Northshore Univ. Health Sys.
| Decision Date | 11 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-19-0070,1-19-0070 |
| Citation | 155 N.E.3d 486,2019 IL App (1st) 190070,440 Ill.Dec. 716 |
| Parties | Brandon BOSCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, an Illinois-Not-for-Profit Corporation; DePaul University, an Illinois Private University; Tracy Felt; and Julia Feczko, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Joseph P. Selbka, of Pluymert, MacDonald, Hargrove & Lee, Ltd., of Hoffman Estates, for appellant.
Jason A. Parson, Luisa F. Trujillo, and Christopher C. Heery, of Anderson, Rasor & Partners, LLP, of Chicago, for appellees NorthShore University Health System, Tracey Felt, and Julia Feczko.
Scott L. Warner and Karen L. Courtheoux, of Husch Blackwell LLP, of Chicago, for other appellee.
¶ 1 Plaintiff Brandon Bosch was dismissed from a school for nurse anesthetists run by NorthShore University Health System (NorthShore) and DePaul University (DePaul). He sued, claiming that NorthShore and DePaul breached an implied contract when they dismissed him for "wholly invented" reasons. He also pleaded claims for breach of contract based on third-party beneficiary status as well as counts sounding in fraud and spoliation of evidence. He added a claim of tortious interference against the two clinical instructors who allegedly fabricated the charges against him.
¶ 2 The circuit court dismissed each claim with prejudice. We affirm the trial court's judgment in all respects but one. We hold that Bosch stated a claim for breach of an implied contract with both NorthShore and DePaul. While the trial court was understandably reluctant to wade into matters of academic judgment for which courts have long considered themselves ill suited, this case, as pleaded, is not about the school's academic judgment. It's about fabricating charges against a student the instructors didn't like, to run him out of the school on the eve of his graduation. Bold and difficult to prove as they may be, these allegations, if true, would state a claim for breach of an implied contract.
¶ 3 To that extent and only that extent, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.
¶ 5 We take the following facts from Bosch's second amended complaint, which we accept as true at the pleading stage. Kramer v. Szczepaniak , 2018 IL App (1st) 171411, ¶ 22, 428 Ill.Dec. 702, 123 N.E.3d 431.
¶ 6 The complaint alleges that NorthShore and DePaul jointly run the NorthShore School of Nurse Anesthesia (School). Its program trains students to become nurse anesthetists. It consists of two parts: a classroom component administered by DePaul and clinical instruction administered by NorthShore.
¶ 7 If a student successfully completes the program, NorthShore will provide a certificate of completion of the training required to be a nurse anesthetist. If the student is also a degree-seeking student, DePaul would confer a master's degree in nursing. DePaul will not grant the degree unless the student completes the clinical instruction provided by NorthShore. The program is accredited as the "NorthShore University HealthSystem School of Nurse Anesthesia, DePaul University."
¶ 8 In 2010, Bosch enrolled in the School. He successfully completed all clinical and classroom instruction from September 2010 to July 2012. In July, he began his final course, Practicum III. Defendants Tracy Felt and Julia Feczko were the preceptors—the clinical instructors—for Practicum III. Bosch claims that due to a "personality conflict," Felt and Feczko "began manufacturing reasons to discipline Plaintiff and eventually have [him] dismissed from the program."1
¶ 9 On July 26, Bosch was placed on probation for alleged problems in Practicum III. In accordance with the program's student handbook, Bosch received a notice detailing the reasons he was being placed on probation. The notice stated that Bosch (1) failed to prepare routine anesthesia equipment, (2) failed to correlate anesthetic requirements with monitored parameters and surgical events, (3) required frequent reminders to provide routine equipment, (4) failed to manage intra-operative problems, (5) failed to comply with the controlled substance policy, (6) was disorganized in setting up for cases, (7) failed to anticipate progress of cases, (8) was unable to multitask, and (9) was unable to think critically and solve problems during case management.
¶ 10 While he was on probation, Felt and Feczko continued to treat Bosch with hostility and "continued to use false and arbitrary, or subjective but distorted reasons" to fail him. A month later, in August, Bosch met with the directors of the program to discuss his probation. At this meeting, Bosch claims the School was unwilling to entertain the idea that Felt and Feczko's criticisms were illegitimate. After this initial meeting, the School continued Bosch's probation for another 30 days. At the end of the continued probation, as a result of Felt and Feczko's "misrepresentations and misimpressions of Plaintiff's performance," Bosch was told to withdraw from the program or be dismissed.
¶ 11 Bosch's second amended complaint contains the following claims: breach of implied tuition contract against NorthShore and DePaul (Counts 1 and 3); third-party beneficiary breach of contract against NorthShore and DePaul (Counts 2 and 4); breach of implied contract (agency theory) against DePaul (Count 5); fraud against NorthShore and DePaul (Count 6); intentional interference with contractual relationship against Felt and Feczko (Count 7); and spoliation of evidence against NorthShore and DePaul (Count 8). Counts 6 and 8 were included solely to preserve them for appeal.2
¶ 12 Bosch alleges that on July 17, 2019, just before Bosch was placed on probation, Felt and Feczko made false accusations against him. Specifically, Felt "wrongly accused Plaintiff of not having suction available at a patient's bedside during intubation," and Feczko "falsely accused Plaintiff of a serious violation of narcotics policy for a small paperwork error." He claims that the probation notices contain numerous false allegations and "grossly" distorted the facts which led to his probation and dismissal. He directly refutes each of the claimed deficiencies by alleging that:
¶ 13 The distortions alleged above were so serious and so wildly departed from Plaintiff's actual performance as to amount to misrepresentations. The complaint also alleges that other students with similar skill sets and performance were not expelled or put on probation.
¶ 14 As for the contract claims, Bosch alleges that Felt and Feczko's behavior, and his subsequent dismissal, breached the implied contract to provide him an education. Finally, he pleaded that NorthShore and DePaul have either an agency relationship or are engaged in a joint venture, such that DePaul can be held liable for the actions of Felt and Feczko—both of whom were employed by NorthShore.
¶ 15 The trial court ruled that Bosch's contract claims fell into the category of nonjusticiable academic decisions. The court likewise dismissed the claim for tortious interference and again dismissed the fraud and spoliation claims. Bosch timely appealed.
¶ 17 Bosch says the court erred by granting defendants' section 2-615 motions to dismiss. A section 2-615 motion tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint based on defects on its face. O'Callaghan v. Satherlie , 2015 IL App (1st) 142152, ¶ 18, 394 Ill.Dec. 708, 36 N.E.3d 999. Attached exhibits are part of the complaint and must be considered when determining whether the complaint is defective. Kirchner v. Greene , 294 Ill. App. 3d 672, 678, 229 Ill.Dec. 171, 691 N.E.2d 107 (1998). The court must take as true all well-pleaded facts in the complaint and accept all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts. Schweihs v. Chase Home Finance, LLC , 2016 IL 120041, ¶ 27, 412 Ill.Dec. 882, 77 N.E.3d 50. We review an order of dismissal de novo . Kramer , 2018 IL App (1st) 171411, ¶ 22, 428 Ill.Dec. 702, 123 N.E.3d 431.
¶ 19 One way in which Bosch seeks to hold defendants liable in contract is by claiming that the School had a contract with the body that provides it accreditation, the Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs (the Council). Bosch claims that he is a third-party beneficiary of that alleged contract. We agree with the trial court that these counts fail to state a claim.
¶ 20 The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) does not accredit schools directly but grants authority to private entities to do so. The Council is a nongovernmental accrediting body that claims to have been recognized since 1975 by the DOE. Among other things,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cromwell v. Williams
...agent is only liable for actions which are outside its scope of duty to the corporation."); Bosch v. NorthShore Univ. Health Sys. , 440 Ill.Dec. 716, 155 N.E.3d 486, 507 (Ill. Ct. App. 2019) (As long as an employee "is acting in accordance with the interest of the employer," he or she will ......
-
Gociman v. Loyola Univ. of Chi.
...Consequently, "Illinois law generally recognizes an implied contract between a student and a school." Bosch v. NorthShore Univ. Health Sys. , 440 Ill.Dec. 716, 155 N.E.3d 486, 495 (2019).1 Illinois courts typically acknowledge two types of implied contract between the student and the school......
-
Allen v. Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Ctr.
...Yard & Transit Co. v. Mallory, Son & Zimmerman Co. , 157 Ill. 554, 565, 41 N.E. 888, 891 (1895) ).See also Bosch v. NorthShore University Health System , 2019 IL App (1st) 190070, ¶ 87, 440 Ill.Dec. 716, 155 N.E.3d 486 (stating that under the doctrine of apparent agency, "the purported agen......
-
Jackson v. Callan Publishing, Inc.
...or the general public that gives a reasonable impression that the former is an agent with actual authority. Bosch v. NorthShore University Health System , 2019 IL App (1st) 190070, ¶ 87, 440 Ill.Dec. 716, 155 N.E.3d 486. A party alleging the existence of an apparent agency relationship must......