Nguyen v. Univ. of St. Augustine for Health Scis.
| Decision Date | 06 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 3:21-cv-173-MMH-MCR |
| Parties | LUKE NGUYEN, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE FOR HEALTH SCIENCES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 52; Motion), filed August 10 2022. Plaintiff Luke Nguyen filed a response in opposition to the Motion. See Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (52) (Doc. 57; Response), filed September 9, 2022. Defendant University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences (USAHS) filed a reply. See Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 58; Reply) filed September 23, 2022. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review.
In the summer of 2016, Nguyen enrolled in the accelerated Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) program at the USAHS campus in St Augustine, Florida. See Videotaped Deposition of Luke Phuoc Nguyen (Doc. 53-7; Nguyen Dep.) at 5. When he enrolled, Nguyen received a student handbook setting forth USAHS's policies. Id. At the time, he reviewed a paragraph in the handbook informing him that he should contact the student services office to learn how to request reasonable accommodations if needed. Id. at 6, 68. In his first trimester, Summer 2016, Nguyen passed all of his courses. Id. at 6, 71. In Fall 2016, however, Nguyen withdrew from his courses after experiencing a severe panic attack. Id. at 7, 71. On September 19, 2016, a mental health professional diagnosed Nguyen with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Id. at 7-8. After Nguyen received these diagnoses, his academic advisor Lisa Chase and the accelerated DPT program director Jeff Rot recommended that Nguyen transfer to the “flex” DPT program. Id. at 8. Although the flex DPT program took longer to complete, it allowed students to take fewer classes each trimester than the accelerated program. Id. at 10.
Following Chase and Rot's advice, Nguyen took a leave of absence for the rest of the Fall trimester and transitioned to the flex DPT program in Spring 2017. Id. at 8-9, 38, 73-74. At the time, Nguyen requested no other accommodations. Id. at 9.
In the Spring, Summer, and Fall trimesters of 2017, Nguyen passed his classes but expressed apprehension about his timed examinations. Id. at 1011, 71. During Summer 2017, Nguyen told his Biomechanics professor that, because of his GAD, he “had concerns about the amount of time that was given” for the examination. Id. at 10-11. The professor recommended that Nguyen practice so that he would be more confident in his knowledge. Id. at 11. Similarly, in Fall 2017, Nguyen informed two professors that he had “concerns” about the practical examinations in his courses. Id. These professors also advised him to practice and study more. Id. According to Nguyen, none of the professors referred him to the disability services office, and he did not know that he could request an accommodation from that office. Id.
In Spring 2018, Nguyen passed his two courses with some difficulty, earning a C+ and a C. Id. at 12, 71. One of those classes was Musculoskeletal I, taught by David Kempfert. Id. at 12. After Nguyen failed a practical examination in the class, Kempfert gave him a retake request form to fill out. Id. On the form, Nguyen stated that the testing conditions “were not fair” because of “noise” and because the professor “was leading answers to the partner.” Id. Kempfert did not approve the request form and characterized it as unprofessional. Id. After meeting with Kempfert and the flex DPT program director Debra Gray, Nguyen believed that the three of them reached an “understanding.” Id. at 12-13. Nguyen then retook the examination but failed “because of time.” Id. at 13. After failing the retake, Nguyen told his examiner, Margaret Wicinski, about his GAD and ADHD. Id. Wicinski advised him to practice more. Id.
USAHS gave Nguyen approval for a second retake of the examination. Id. at 14. Before the second retake, Nguyen asked Gray and Kempfert whether he could use a sheet of paper and a pencil during his examination. Id. at 15. Gray and Kempfert did not allow him to have those materials. Id. Nevertheless, Nguyen passed the second retake and passed the course. Id. at 14. In this lawsuit, Nguyen testifies that he wanted a sheet of paper and a pencil because of his GAD and ADHD. Id. at 15.
In the other class that Nguyen took in Spring 2018, General Therapeutic Exercise, he also had to retake an examination. Id. at 16. Before he retook the examination, Nguyen told his instructor, Wicinski, in an email that he was worried about time management on the examination. Id. Although Nguyen did not mention his GAD or ADHD in that email, he assumed that Wicinski would connect his time management concerns to a previous conversation about his learning disabilities. Id. Nguyen asked Wicinski whether he could have the most time-consuming skill tested first. Id. at 16, 77-76. Wicinski replied that Nguyen could ask the examiner to go in the order Nguyen wanted. Id. Nguyen passed the retake. Id. at 17. After Nguyen passed the course, Wicinski told him that she still had concerns that he lacked foundational knowledge necessary to succeed in future classes. Id. at 17, 79-80; Declaration of Dr. Margaret Wicinski (Doc. 53-2; Wicinski Decl.) at 2. At the time, Nguyen agreed with the assessment. Nguyen Dep. at 17, 80. Despite Nguyen's difficulties in Musculoskeletal I and General Therapeutic Exercise, he did not request any accommodations from USAHS's disability services office in Spring 2018. Id. at 17. In Summer 2018, Nguyen passed his courses and did not request any accommodations. Id. at 17, 72.
In Fall 2018, Nguyen passed three of his courses but failed Musculoskeletal II Mock Clinic (Mock Clinic), taught by Wicinski. Id. at 17-18, 72. At the beginning of the trimester, Nguyen received and reviewed a syllabus for Mock Clinic. Id. at 18-19. The syllabus for Mock Clinic said that the highest grade that could be awarded for a retake of a practical examination was a 75%. Id. at 19, 87. The syllabus mandated that there “is expected to be no sharing of information about the practical exams.” Id. at 92. Like this syllabus, USAHS's student handbook in Fall 2018 prohibited “giving or receiving information about the content of an exam.” Id. at 37, 144. The syllabus for Mock Clinic also informed the students that they could request accommodations by contacting staff in the disability services office. Id. at 19, 88. Likewise, the student handbook stated that a student must complete the “reasonable accommodation request form” on the online student portal to request an accommodation. Id. at 37, 145. The handbook noted that students should expect “to maintain the standards that apply to all University students and request only the accommodations approved by this process.” Id.
On October 27, 2018, Mock Clinic had a midterm in which students performed a physical examination of a simulated patient (another student) and then did written work diagnosing the patient and proposing a treatment plan. Id. at 18, 95. Only the written work was graded. Id. at 18; Wicinski Decl. at 3. Because only the written work was graded, USAHS's policy did not allow retakes of the examination. Wicinski Decl. at 3. Nguyen misunderstood an instruction that he could not receive help from anyone during the examination. Nguyen Dep. at 18. As a consequence, Nguyen did not inquire further of the simulated patient while he was performing his written work. Id. Nguyen received a 29% on the midterm. Id. at 19; Wicinski Decl. at 3. The midterm was worth 25% of the total grade in the class. Nguyen Dep. at 19, 85; Wicinski Decl. at 2. According to Wicinski, because of Nguyen's midterm grade and the grade on his unit assignments, Nguyen had to earn a “minimum final grade of 87.4% on the Mock Clinic final exam to pass the course.” Wicinski Decl. at 5.
Near the end of the trimester, Nguyen experienced another panic attack. Nguyen Dep. at 20. On November 30, 2018, Nguyen asked Wicinski to postpone his final examination, originally scheduled for December 1, until after he saw his primary care physician on December 6. Id. at 21, 97-98, 102; Wicinski Decl. at 5. Wicinski granted this request, scheduling the examination for December 8. Nguyen Dep. at 21-22, 105. On December 3, Nguyen told Wicinski that he felt better. Id. at 21. Three days later, on December 6, Nguyen emailed Wicinski to inform her that his doctors said that he was “okay to continue with school” and that his psychiatrist recommended that he “explore the option of time and a half for examination [sic] in the future.” Id. at 22, 104. Nguyen said that he was going to research USAHS's requirements for requesting time and a half and discuss time and a half with his psychiatrist during a scheduled appointment on December 10. Id.
The final examination had two parts: a practical examination of a patient and a written portion in which the student wrote a plan of care for the patient. Id. at 22-23, 86; Wicinski Decl. at 3. According to Wicinski, writing the plan of care “immediately following the examination” is an essential requirement of the course because it “mimics the expectation in the clinic.” Wicinski Decl. at 4. To pass the final examination, a student needed to achieve at least an 80% score on each portion of the examination. Id.; Nguyen Dep. at 86.
When Nguyen took the final examination on December 8, 2018, he scored a 74% on the practical examination, short of the 80% required to pass. Nguyen Dep. at 23; Wicinski Decl. at 5. Wicinski states that Nguyen asked for his score on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial