Heidi Weidmann v. State of Illinois

OPINION

JANN, J.

This matter comes for hearing on Claimant Heidi Weidmann’s claim that the Respondent, University of Illinois College of Medicine (UICM), breached an oral contract to reinstate claimant as a medical student.

[*210] Facts

Claimant enrolled at the UICM in September 1984. Except for successful completion of the National Boards Part II Comprehensive Examination (NBII), which she failed in April 1991, she completed all other graduation requirements. Respondent had a policy in 1991 of allowing students, who failed the National Boards Part II on their initial attempt, an opportunity to retake the test. Between the time claimant initially took the test in April 1991 and her retaking of the test in April 1992, the National Boards Part II test was renamed the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step II (USMLE Step II).

Respondent allowed the claimant to take the USMLE Step II in April 1992. She failed that test. At the time she sat for the USMLE Step II, she had been accepted for a residency program at the University of Southern California, contingent only upon her passing the USMLE Step II. After her failure to pass the USMLE Step II, the claimant requested to retake the test arguing that University policy allowed a second opportunity to pass the USMLE Step II exam, and she was allowed only one opportunity. The claimant reasoned that the USMLE Step II, previously known as the National Boards Part II exam, but since renamed and reformatted, should not be considered as her second opportunity, to successfully pass the National Boards Part II Examination or the second opportunity to successfully pass the USMLE Step II.

The Respondent denied Ms. Weidman’s request to retake the USMLE Step II. The University’s position being that Ms. Weidman twice failed to pass Part II of the National Boards Examination, the first in April 1991 (NBII) and the second, after a period of assigned remedial study, in April 1992 (USMLE II) which comprised two opportunities to pass. The Respondent treated the renamed and reformatted test (USMLE II) as the same test (NBII) for the purpose of providing the claimant two opportunities to pass. Because the claimant failed to fulfill a College of Medicine graduation requirement, i.e. the passing of the USMLE Step II exam, she was dropped from the College of Medicine for poor scholarship. The claimant’s informal appeal to the University to reverse its decision to drop her from the College of Medicine was denied. The claimant’s grievance of the decision to drop her from the College of Medicine was considered by the University and denied in January 1993.

Over two years later, on February 10th, 1995 claimant went to the office of Assistant Dean Lillye Hart to discuss a transfer letter claimant wanted sent to a particular medical school. Claimant testified Ms. Hart state on February 10, 1995 that:

“She had good news for me. After there were other students who, like me, had completed all the requirements for graduation with the exception of passing the USMLE Step II and were dropped. And the decision has been made to reinstate Them and that offer of reinstatement was also being given to me. I should Accept the proposal with a letter.”

Approximately nine weeks later claimant sent a letter dated April 21st, 1995 to Dr. Charles Rice indicating that she was accepting reinstatement as a medical student at the University of Illinois College of Medicine.

[*211] Assistant Dean Lillye Hart testified that between 1992 and 1995 her duties at the College of Medicine included staffing the committee on student promotions and coordinating the student grievance process. Ms. Hart testified that the claimant approached her on more than one occasion before February 10th, 1995, requesting that a letter be written on her behalf regarding a letter of transfer. Ms. Hart informed the claimant that she was not authorized to write such a letter. On February 10th, 1995 the claimant dropped by her University office to again request a transfer letter. Ms. Hart advised the Claimant that there had been three students who had been readmitted to the College of Medicine through the grievance process, who also had taken the National Board Exam and had not passed it, and that they had been given another opportunity to retake the test. If the claimant wanted to have her case reviewed, she should write a letter to the vice dean, Dr. Charles Rice, describing the claimant’s situation. Ms. Hart denied making an offer of reinstatement or any other offer to the claimant.

On January 14, 1998 claimant filed a “Complaint for Injunctive and Other Relief” in the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County - Heidi Weidmann v. University of Illinois, et. al., 98 CH 00497. On February 16th, 1999 the claimant voluntarily dismissed 98 CH 00497 without prejudice. On May 20, 1999 claimant filed a two-count complaint in the Court of Claims seeking injunctive relief. Count I was a declaratory judgment action and Count II was also an opportunity to retake both USMLE Steps I and II.

On May 9th, 2000 the Court of Claims entered an order dismissing claimant’s complaint on the grounds that prior Court of Claims decisions foreclosed granting injunctive relief. Claimant’s amended petition for rehearing was granted, the Court vacating its order of May 9th, 2000, and allowing claimant to file an amended complaint seeking monetary damages only.

In her verified complaint, Paragraph 24, claimant alleges Ms. Lillye Hart, Assistant Dean, advised Heidi Weidmann as follows:

[…An authorized body of

the University of Illinois had met and

decided to allow those similarly

situated to her to take the USMLE

Step II; that the duly authorized body

had decided to allow her to do the

same to comport with fairness…]

An evidentiary hearing was held before Commissioner Joseph Cavanaugh on July 27th and July 28th, 2004, and is before the Court for decision.

The issues for resolution before the Court are the following:

1. Whether a contract between the Claimant and Respondent was

formed resulting

from the February 10th, 1995 meeting between Heidi Weidmann

and Lillye Hart?

[*212] 2. If a contract was formed between the par ties as a result of the above

meeting, did

Respondent breach the contract?

3. If Respondent breached the contract does Claimant have Damages

proximately

caused by Respondent’s breach?

Legal Analysis

In order to succeed on a claim for breach of contract, a claimant must prove the existence of all the elements of a contract by a preponderance of the evidence. Mannion v. Stallings & Company, Inc., 204 Ill. App. 3D 179, 186, 561 N.E. 2d 1134, 1138 (1st Dist. 1990). Two essential elements necessary to establish the existence of a contract are an offer by one party and acceptance by the other. Id.

Claimant, in attempting to prove the existence of an offer made by the university to reinstate her as a student at the medical school, testified to a conversation with Assistant Dean Lillye Hart on February 10, 1995. Though claimant did not have a reinstatement application pending, claimant stated that Dr. Hart told her “The decision had been made to offer to reinstate me.” On cross-examination she testified Dr. Hart told her that a meeting of deans had decided to give claimant the same offer as that made to other students. In addition, in her verified complaint, claimant stated that an authorized body had decided to allow her to take the USMLE Step II exam. Significantly, claimant did not allege in her complaint that the offer to reinstate her as a student was ever made.

Assistant Dean Hart, on the other hand, referring to the February 10th conversation, stated that she told claimant that other student had been readmitted to the College of Medicine through the grievance process. Dr. Hart also testified that she herself had no authority to decide whether or not to reinstate a student. Finally, Dr. Hart testified that she told claimant to write a letter to the Vice Dean, Dr. Rice, explaining her situation.

Dr. Hart’s testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Leslie J. Sandlow, Senior Associate Dean for Education at the College of Medicine. He stated that a student would not be reinstated without having made a form request. Claimant herself testified that she had failed the second exam once before, and was only allowed to re-take it after she followed the formal grievance and appeals process.

In addition, in contrast to claimant’s assertion that the offer to reinstate her had been made orally, Dr. Sandlow testified that any decision to reinstate a student would only be made in writing.

Finally, claimant presented no evidence to support her assertion that she was told that the decision to reinstate her had been made by an “authorized body” or a meeting of deans. There was no testimony or documentation that such a meeting ever took place. To the contrary, Dr. Sandlow stated that there was no group or committee within the College of Medicine that would be involved in a decision to reinstate a student.

Therefore, claimant has failed to meet her burden of proving that the College of Medicine made an offer to reinstate her as a student or an offer to allow her to retake the USMLE Step II.

[*213] Even if claimant was able to establish that some kind of offer was indeed made, she also had the burden of proving a meeting of the minds regarding the terms of the offer. What is required to establish a meeting of the minds is proof of the intent of two parties to agree on the terms of the contract. Vandevier v. Mulay Plastics, Inc., 135 Ill.App. 3D 787,791, 482 N.E. 2d 377, 380. “Where it appears that the language used of the terms proposed is understood differently by the parties, there is no meeting of the minds and no contract exists between the parties.” Id.

Dr. Hart testified that a formal letter would be required to gain reinstatement as a student. Her testimony was corroborated by Dr. Sandlow’s recounting of the college’s policy. Even claimant herself was unsure as to the exact terms of the offer, since she alternately claimed that it was an offer to allow her to re-take the second exam, and thereafter testified that the offer was to reinstate her as a student.

Since claimant failed to establish that either an offer to reinstate her as a student, or an offer to allow her to retake the USMLE Step II was ever made, her claim for breach of contract fails in its entirety, and it is unnecessary to reach the issues of respondent’s breach or damages.

For the foregoing reasons it is the order of the court that Claimant’s is DENIED.