Militana v. University of Miami

• Decision Date: 02 June 1970
• Docket Number: No. 69--618,69--618
• Citation: 236 So.2d 162
• Parties: Robert J. MILITANA, Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, a Florida corporation not for profit, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 162

236 So.2d 162

Robert J. MILITANA, Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, a Florida corporation not for profit, Appellee.

No. 69--618.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 2, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 10, 1970.

Bennett, Schwartz & Schwartz, Gainesville, for appellant.

Mershon, Sawyer, Johnson, Dunwody & Cole, and Thomas G. Schultz, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

By an amended complaint filed against the University of Miami on May 26, 1967, the appellant, a student in the university's school of medicine, alleged that he had successfully completed the courses and work prescribed and thereby had become entitled to be graduated by the university as a doctor of medicine, but that the university arbitrarily, capriciously and in bad faith had refused to issue to him a degree therefor. The prayer of the amended complaint was for a mandatory injunction to compel the defendant university to issue to the plaintiff a degree of doctor of medicine. The university defended on the ground that it had dismissed the plaintiff from the medical school at the end of his third year of enrollment for academic failure, and had taken like action for academic deficiency of the plaintiff following his fourth year in the medical school, which he had undertaken contrary to the desire of the university but by virtue of an order of mandamus, during the period of the university's appeal from the mandamus order which had resulted in its reversal. On final hearing the circuit court found for the defendant university and dismissed the cause, and thereupon the plaintiff took this appeal.

The opinion and judgment of the trial court, which sufficiently revealed the facts and in our view properly applied thereto the controlling legal principles, was as follows:

'This cause came on for final hearing before the Court, commencing on February 18, 1969, pursuant to notice thereof by the Court. The Court, having heard and considered the testimony and evidence adduced by the plaintiff and the defendant, this Court to direct and require defendant and the defendant's memorandum of law, and being duly advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows:

'1. Plaintiff Militana seeks the aid of thist Court to direct and require defendant University to grant him a degree of Doctor of Medicine in recognition of his having satisfactorily completed the prescribed course for such a degree. Defendant contends that plaintiff failed to meet the academic standards required for a medical degree and dropped plaintiff from school without granting this degree.

'2. Plaintiff enrolled in the medical school of the University on September 10, 1959, and completed the first two years of study. In August 1963, on recommendation of the Executive Committee, he was dropped for academic failure of the third year. After the lapse of a year, plaintiff filed suit (not the instant case) petitioning the Court to mandamus the University to promote him to the fourth year of medicine, and the trial judge entered a peremptory writ granting this relief. In obedience to this order, plaintiff was admitted to the fourth year in the school of medicine. Appeal was instituted by the University, but the trial court refused to supersede the effect of its order; consequently, plaintiff remained in school throughout the duration of the appeal time. In March 1966, the District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, but plaintiff had completed his senior year of studies before the Supreme Court had denied the petition for certiorari filed by the plaintiff (Fla., 192 So.2d 488, September 1966). By letter, dated June 10, 1966, the University notified plaintiff that he was dropped from the medical school for academic failure of the fourth year.

'3. Plaintiff maintains he is entitled to his degree on primarily two grounds: (1) that he has not been accorded due process in not having had notice of the proposed action of the Executive Committee and an opportunity to appear before said Committee to defend against the charge of academic failure, and (2) that he has satisfactorily passed the academic requirements prescribed by the school.

'4. Notice of charges and an opportunity to be heard are certainly essential to due process and required when a student is dropped from school for disciplinary reasons; however, such is not required when the dismissal is for academic failure. See Woody v. Burns, (Fla.App.1966) 188 So.2d 56. Plaintiff complains of unfair treatment when he had no notice of the meeting of the Executive Committee of the school of medicine considering his dismissal and was thus deprived of an opportunity to appear before this body and defend against this charge. The school is not required to give plaintiff this notice and owed no obligation to permit and allow plaintiff to appear before the Executive Committee and present matters in support of plaintiff's contention that he should not be dropped from the school enrollment for failure in his studies.

'5. On the question of determining whether a student has failed to meet the...