How Not to Conduct Yourself in Medical School

Law in Higher Education

Case Name: Charleston v. Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Chicago 741 F.3d 769 (C.A.7, Ill.2013) R-Z.

Procedural History: Charleston brought his 1983 action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; the case was argued on November 6, 2013

Law in Higher Education

Gerald Charleston, a former medical student at University of Illinois College of Medicine, claimed that his dismissal for unprofessional conduct violated his constitutional rights to procedural and substantive due process, and equal protection.

Facts: Charleston's professional actions during his clinical rounds were considered to be inferior, and also falsified in some instances. The Student Progress Committee met to consider the situation and Charleston's written response to the allegations; the Committee recommended that he be mentored going forward. Following, an unrelated complaint from an Associate Dean was forwarded -- along with the extant documents -- to the Executive Committee, which ignored previous recommendation and dismissed Charleston. Charleston claims to have had no opportunity to address the Dean's earlier allegation. Charleston claims that he and the College had an agreement -- which he interpreted as protected property -- according to the; Committee's recommendation.

Rule of Law: In Bissessur v. Ind. Univ. Bd. Of Trs.,581 F.3d 599, 601 (7th Cir. 2009), the court held that a student does not have a stand-alone property interest in an education at a state university. With regard to the School of Medicine not following its own dismissal proceudres, in Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 250 -- 51 (1983), the State may require certain procedures, but this does not create an independent substantive right. The court determined that a student does not have a fundamental right to an education, as in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 -- 37 (1973), or to a graduate education, as in Galdikas v. Fagan, 342 F.3d 684, 688 -- 89 (7th Cir. 2003) and Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2004). These cases a pivotal to decisions made regarding property interest, and procedural and substantive due process.