Goldman v. The University of Kansas

• Decision Date: 23 December 2020
• Docket Number: 060,122
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals
• Parties: Stephen D. Goldman, Appellant, v. The University of Kansas and Jeffrey P. Krise, Appellees.

Stephen D. Goldman, Appellant, v. The University of Kansas and Jeffrey P. Krise, Appellees.

No. 122, 060

Court of Appeals of Kansas

December 23, 2020

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

Appeal from Douglas District Court; James R. McCabria, judge.

Theodore J. Lickteig, of Lenexa, and Frederick D. Deay II, of Overland Park, for appellant.

Derek T. Teeter and Michael T. Raupp, of Husch Blackwell LLP, of Kansas City, Missouri, for appellees.

Before Arnold-Burger, C.J., Powell and Gardner, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Powell, J.:

Stephen D. Goldman, a former graduate student in the School of Pharmacy at the University of Kansas, was found guilty of committing scholarly misconduct in 2010. As a result, the University placed a letter in his file for three years and dismissed him from the School of Pharmacy, but it did not expel him from the University. Goldman filed this lawsuit challenging the University's actions under the Kansas Judicial Review Act (KJRA), K.S.A. 77-601 et seq., as well as asserting tort and statutory causes of action against the University and Dr. Jeffrey Krise, his advisor and the complainant in the scholarly misconduct action (collectively "Defendants"). In two separate rulings, the district court denied relief under the KJRA and granted summary judgment on his other claims in the Defendants' favor. Goldman now appeals, raising numerous points of error. After a thorough review of the record, and for reasons more fully explained below, we affirm the district court.

Factual and Procedural Background

The facts from the agency hearing are derived from the district court's memorandum decision on Goldman's KJRA claims.

"Findings of Fact

"Stephen Goldman (petitioner) was a graduate student in the School of Pharmacy at the University of Kansas. Dr Jeffrey Krise is a faculty member in the Pharmaceutical Chemistry Department in the School of Pharmacy, and acted as Mr. Goldman's advisor. Mr. Goldman had been working under the supervision of Dr. Krise for more than four years. The relevant facts of this case come into play when Mr. Goldman was in his final year of study. In May 2009 Dr. Krise requested that Mr. Goldman perform a series of experiments, with the intent to publish the results. Over the course of roughly seven months, Mr. Goldman met weekly with Dr. Krise and the other members of the lab to discuss lab results. Dr. Krise reported that Mr. Goldman presented information in the weekly lab meetings that seemed to confirm the group's initial hypothesis.

"In December 2009, in preparation for his manuscript outlining his lab's results, Dr. Krise asked Mr. Goldman to send him very specific data. Dr. Krise asked for all primary (i.e. raw) data with regard to each experiment Mr Goldman had completed. The experiments fell into five separate categories. Two categories dealt with mouse cells, two others dealt with human cells, and the final category of experiments was separate and the court will call it the "siRNA" category. In response to his advisor's request, Mr. Goldman sent Dr. Krise by email the results from only the experiments done on mouse cells (i.e. two categories of experiments). After receiving Mr. Goldman's email message, Dr. Krise met with him in person and explained he needed the data from the human cells and the SiRNA experiments as well. Mr. Goldman sent Dr. Krise a second email message containing an attachment that appeared to Dr. Krise to contain the human cell data. Dr. Krise based his belief that the data contained in the attachment was the human cell experiment data he requested on the labeling contained in the document. The belief was also bolstered by the fact that he specifically asked Goldman for that data in person a few days prior to receiving the email message.

"Dr. Krise looked through Mr. Goldman's lab notebook that was always present in the lab to confirm the results Mr. Goldman emailed. After evaluating Mr. Goldman's lab notebook, Dr. Krise believed that Mr. Goldman had made misrepresentations about the data at lab meetings for the previous seven months. Dr. Krise also believed that Mr. Goldman had sent fabricated or misleading data in the second email that was supposed to contain human cell data. In mid-January, Dr. Krise met with Mr. Goldman to discuss these issues and Mr. Goldman subsequently sent an apologetic email, the purpose of which is now in dispute. After receiving Mr. Goldman's apologetic email, Dr. Krise initiated scholarly misconduct allegations against Mr. Goldman. The University conducted an internal misconduct procedure after which it dismissed Mr. Goldman from the School of Pharmacy.

"Timeline of University Review Process

"Dr. Krise completed the School of Pharmacy Student Misconduct form on February 17, 2010. Next, the Dean of the School of Pharmacy sent a letter to Vice Chancellor of Research & Graduate Studies, Steve Warren, with copies to Mr. Goldman and Dr. Krise. Vice Chancellor Warren asked Dr. Robert Hanzlik to perform an Inquiry into the allegations, as required by Section 2 of Article IX of the University Senate Rules and Regulations (USRRs). After reviewing materials from the parties, including narrative statements and the lab notebook, and meeting with Mr. Goldman and Dr. Krise, Dr. Hanzlik reported his findings to Vice Chancellor Warren in a letter dated May 19th. Dr. Hanzlik recommended that a more thorough investigation be completed, subject to Section 3 of Article IX of the USRRs. Mr. Goldman received a copy of Dr. Hanzlik's Inquiry report on June 2nd. By July 9th the University had appointed an Investigative Committee ("Committee") and notified Mr. Goldman and Dr. Krise of the composition of the Committee. The Committee was comprised of seven individuals, five of whom were voting members. Dr. Krise and Mr. Goldman each nominated three individuals, and one person from each of their lists was chosen to serve on the Committee. The Committee held its hearings in mid-October and issued a draft report on October 28th. Its final report was issued to Vice Chancellor Warren on December 21st. The Investigative Committee found that Mr. Goldman had committed scholarly misconduct and recommended that 1) a letter be placed in Mr. Goldman's file for three years, and 2) the School of Pharmacy and Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry make every effort to work with Mr. Goldman to enable him to complete his Ph.D. research in a timely manner. The Committee noted several mitigating circumstances to explain their recommendation.

"Under the University rules, the Vice Chancellor finally determines the sanctions to be imposed for scholarly misconduct. U.S.R.R. 9.4.1. Vice Chancellor Warren issued his final determination December 22nd. In his report, Vice Chancellor Warren agreed that Mr. Goldman had committed scholarly misconduct, but chose to impose different sanctions than the Investigative Committee. The new sanctions included the letter in Mr. Goldman's file for three years, and Mr. Goldman's dismissal from the School of Pharmacy. Vice Chancellor Warren noted that Mr. Goldman was not expelled and could petition the School of Pharmacy to seek reinstatement, or admission into another department or school within the University. The Vice Chancellor's report represented a final agency action by the University. The sanctions were effective on January 7, 2011, after the Senate Executive Committee found no reason to amend the Vice Chancellor's ruling. Mr. Goldman appealed the Vice Chancellor's sanctions to the University Judicial Board, as permitted under USRR 9.4.7. The Judicial Board concluded that the sanction of dismissal was 'substantially disproportionate' to the severity of the misconduct identified. The Judicial Board issued its recommendation to the Chancellor, which more closely mirrored the Investigative Committee's recommended sanctions than they did the Vice Chancellor's sanctions. On June 1st, 2011, the Chancellor issued her decision accepting Vice Chancellor Warren's imposed sanctions."

On April 5, 2010, Goldman sought judicial review of the University's decision in the district court. Over a year later, on September 2, 2011, Goldman amended his petition by adding tort and statutory claims against the University and Krise. In his amended petition, Goldman claimed: (1) The determination of scholarly misconduct was not supported by substantial evidence; (2) the determination was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious; (3) the Investigative Committee (Committee) failed to follow prescribed procedure; (4) one member of the Committee was biased against Goldman; (5) the University tortiously interfered with a prospective business relationship; (6) the University breached its contract with Goldman; and (7) Krise violated Goldman's constitutional right to due process.

On January 5, 2015, following many continuances, the district court issued a memorandum decision denying all of Goldman's KJRA claims. The district court found the Committee heard testimony and evidence and possessed substantial evidence to find Goldman committed scholarly misconduct. Although it questioned Vice Chancellor Steve Warren's reasons for increasing the sanctions over what the Committee had proposed, it noted the Vice Chancellor and Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little made their decision within the proper legal standard, so the decision was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. The district court further found the University followed all its procedures and Goldman was aware of the allegations against him and was able to respond to them. Finally, the district court found there was no support for the claim that Thomas Prisinzano-a Committee member who had coauthored an unrelated academic paper with Krise-had an improper conflict of interest or bias against Goldman rendering the committee...