Sharick v. Southeastern University of Health Sciences, Inc.

• Decision Date: 02 August 2000
• Docket Number: No. 3D98-2674.,3D98-2674.
• Citation: 780 So.2d 136
• Parties: Keith M. SHARICK, Appellant, v. SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES, INC., d/b/a College Of Osteopathic Medicine, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

780 So.2d 136

Keith M. SHARICK, Appellant, v. SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES, INC., d/b/a College Of Osteopathic Medicine, Appellee.

No. 3D98-2674.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

August 2, 2000.

Richard A. Barnett, Hollywood, for appellant.

Panza, Maurer, Maynard & Neel, Tallahassee, and Heidi F. Friedman, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.

SORONDO, J.

Keith M. Sharick, a fourth-year medical student, was dismissed from the College of Osteopathic Medicine (Southeastern), when he was given a failing grade in the final course he required for graduation, a rural rotation in general medicine at the Clewiston Community Health Center. Following several unsuccessful appeals within the university's review process, Sharick filed a complaint, which was amended several times, alleging multiple tort and contract claims against Southeastern. The only claim that ultimately went before the jury was breach of implied-infact contract. The trial court disallowed Sharick's claims for specific performance and past and future lost earning capacity and only permitted the jury to consider damages with respect to tuition expenses. The jury found for Sharick, concluding that Southeastern's decision to dismiss him was arbitrary, capricious, and/or lacking any discernable rational basis, and awarded a partial reimbursement of the tuition paid to Southeastern. Sharick now appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in denying him the right to plead and prove loss of future earning capacity. We reverse.

"The relation between a student and an institution of learning privately conducted, and which receives no aid from the public treasury, is solely contractual in character." John B. Stetson Univ. v. Hunt, 88 Fla. 510, 517, 102 So. 637, 640 (1924). "It is generally accepted that the terms and conditions for graduation are those offered by the publications of the college at the time of enrollment. As such, they have some of the characteristics of a contract between the parties, and are sometimes subject to civil remedies in courts of law." University of Miami v. Militana, 184 So.2d 701, 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).

We begin our analysis by acknowledging that state and federal courts have historically distinguished between the judicial fact finding process and academic judgment regarding the performance of students, particularly when considering whether a student is qualified to be a physician. See generally Board of Curators, Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 88-92, 98 S.Ct. 948, 55 L.Ed.2d 124 (1978)

(determination of whether to dismiss student for academic reasons based upon judgment that student did not have the necessary clinical ability to perform adequately as medical doctor requires expert evaluation and is not readily adapted to procedural tools of judicial or administrative decision making); Militana v. University of Miami, 236 So.2d 162, 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)(quoting Connelly v. University of Vt. & State Agric. College, 244 F.Supp. 156, 160-61 (D.C.D.Vt.1965))("A medical school must be the judge of the qualifications of its students to be granted a degree; Courts are not supposed to be learned in medicine and are not qualified to pass opinion as to the attainments of a student in medicine.").

Accordingly, judicial review of a private educational institution's determination of academic performance in this context is limited to whether the challenged determination was arbitrary and capricious, irrational, made in bad faith, or in violation of constitution or statute. See Hunt, 88 Fla. at 518-19, 102 So. at 640-641 ("a mere mistake of judgment on the part of a school officer in governing his school, either as to his duties or as to facts submitted to him, does not make him liable, but it must be shown that he acted in the matter complained of wantonly, willfully or maliciously."); Montalvo v. University of Miami, 705 So.2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Militana, 236 So.2d at 164.

In this case, the jury found that the university's decision to dismiss Sharick was arbitrary, capricious, and/or lacking any discernable rational basis. This determination is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Southeastern has not challenged the propriety of the adverse jury verdict on cross-appeal. Therefore, the sole issue presently before the court is the appropriate measure of damages for Sharick's wrongful dismissal less than two months prior to when he expected to graduate and obtain his degree as a doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO).¹

The purpose of compensation for a breach of contract is to place the injured party in the position he or she would have been in had the breach not occurred. See generally 17 Fla.Jur.2d Damages § 18 (1997). Damages recoverable by a party injured by a breach of contract are those which would naturally result from the breach and can reasonably be said to have been contemplated by the parties at the time the contract was made. See Douglass Fertilizers & Chem., Inc. v. McClung Landscaping, Inc., 459 So.2d 335, 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)

. The relationship between the parties in this case was essentially a contract between the party who paid a fee for services, the student, and the provider of those services, the private university. Southeastern contends that Sharick contracted with it solely to provide an education in exchange for payment of tuition. We disagree.

"The service rendered is the provision of an educational experience designed to lead to a college degree." Gross v. Family Servs. Agency, Inc., 716 So.2d 337, 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (emphasis added), approved sub nom. Nova Southeastern Univ. v. Gross, 758 So.2d 86 (Fla.2000)

. "When a student is duly admitted by a private university ... there is an implied contract between the student and the university that, if [the student] complies with the terms prescribed by the university, [the student] will obtain [a] degree." Harwood v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 130 Md.App. 476, 747 A.2d 205, 209 (2000); see also Alden v. Georgetown Univ., 734 A.2d 1103, 1111 n. 11 (D.C.1999); Bilut v. Northwestern Univ., 269 Ill.App.3d 125, 206 Ill.Dec. 531, 645 N.E.2d 536, 542 (1994)("The foundation of [the relationships between educational institutions, their students, and faculty] is the understanding that the students will abide by and adhere to the disciplinary regulations and the academic standards established by the faculty and the university; and that upon the satisfactory completion of their studies, they will be awarded a degree in their chosen discipline."); Carr v. St. John's Univ., N.Y., 17 A.D.2d 632, 231 N.Y.S.2d 410 (1962)("The university cannot take the student's money, allow him to remain and waste his time in whole or in part (because the student might regard it as a waste of time if he does not obtain the degree), and then arbitrarily expel him or arbitrarily refuse, when he has completed the required courses, to confer on him that which it promised, namely, the degree"), aff'd, 12 N.Y.2d 802, 235 N.Y.S.2d 834, 187 N.E.2d 18 (1962).

Southeastern's publications at the time of Sharick's enrollment clearly support this conclusion. The preface to the student handbook reflects that the "objective of the University is to offer ... health care science training and education to its students with the purpose of developing competent physicians ... who can serve in all areas of our region." The handbook proceeds to identify Southeastern endorsed organizations whose goal is to produce osteopathic physicians. The course of study is outlined as a "four year curriculum leading to the DO degree." (emphasis added). As such, the receipt of a DO degree upon the successful completion of Sharick's studies was reasonably within the contemplation of the parties at the time Sharick and Southeastern entered into their implied-in-fact contract.

In valuing the loss of this degree within the context of an arbitrary, capricious or bad faith deprivation of such, we conclude that it is appropriate to consider the possibility of lost future earnings. We agree with Sharick that the value of a professional degree, particularly to a prospective physician who has successfully completed the overwhelming majority of the academic and clinical requirements, significantly exceeds the tuition cost expended. Southeastern argues that recovery of anything beyond tuition reimbursement when a school dismisses a student from classes is precluded because any other damages would be too remote, contingent, conjectural and speculative and could not be established within a reasonable degree of certainty. See Farrington v. Richardson, 153 Fla. 907, 915, 16 So.2d 158, 162 (1944); Miller v. Allstate Ins. Co., 573 So.2d 24, 27-28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 352 (1981). While we acknowledge the requirement for certainty of damages in a contract action, this court has recognized several modifying doctrines to this rule, which include:

(a) If the fact of damage is proved with certainty, the extent or amount may be left to reasonable inference.

(b) Where the defendant's wrong has caused the difficulty of proof of damage, he cannot complain of the resulting uncertainty.

(c) Mere difficulty in ascertaining the amount of damage is not fatal.

(d) Mathematical precision in fixing the exact amount is not required.

(e) If the best evidence of the damage of which the situation admits is furnished, this is sufficient.

(f) The plaintiff may recover the value of his contract, and this may be measured by the value of the expected profits.

(g) Profits may sometimes be proved as evidence of

...