Abazari v. Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science
2015 IL App (2d) 140952
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2015Background
- Abazari enrolled at Rosalind Franklin University’s Scholl College of Podiatric Medicine (entered 2009; graduated 2013) after reviewing the school catalog and recruiting materials that touted strong opportunities for podiatric practice and postgraduate training.
- At enrollment and graduation, there was a nationwide shortfall between DPM graduates and available residencies; residencies are required for licensure in most states, so many graduates (including Abazari) could not practice.
- Abazari sued RFUMS, Scholl College, and the health system alleging fraud, fraudulent concealment, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation based on catalog/recruitment statements and admissions communications; the trial court dismissed the amended complaint under Ill. Code Civ. P. § 2-615 with prejudice.
- Key contested statements: RFUMS’s 2003 IBHE application saying Scholl “places its graduates” in residencies; catalog language about postgraduate opportunities (e.g., "unprecedented opportunity" and that "not all students may choose a PM&S-36 residency program"); an admissions email touting low loan-default rates.
- Appellate court reviewed de novo whether the complaint pleaded the elements of fraud-related claims with the particularity required for fraud, and whether statutory or other duties to disclose created liability for nondisclosure of the residency shortage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements in IBHE application or diploma constitute actionable fraud | RFUMS represented it would place graduates and diploma misled graduates into thinking they could practice | Statements were promises or post-event facts/opinions, not false statements of existing fact; no justifiable reliance alleged | Dismissed — not actionable as fraud |
| Whether catalog and oral statements ("unprecedented opportunity"; "most likely match") support fraud | Catalog and faculty assurances induced enrollment and created reasonable reliance | Statements are puffery or opinions/projections, not factual misrepresentations | Dismissed — statements are opinion/puffery, fail fraud specificity |
| Whether negligent misrepresentation was pleaded based on catalog statements | Catalog negligently misrepresented availability of residencies and postgraduate opportunities | Statements were non-factual puffery or accurate descriptions; no duty to guarantee residencies | Dismissed — negligent-misrep claim fails |
| Whether defendants fraudulently concealed material facts (residency shortfall) and owed a duty to disclose under regulatory/public-disclosure principles | School omitted material facts about likely residency shortfall and class overenrollment; school’s voluntary discussion of postgraduate options invoked a duty under 23 Ill. Adm. Code §1030.60(a)(7) | Defendants lacked knowledge of class size/shortfall at time of admission and any omitted projections were future-oriented; plaintiff could have discovered facts | Mixed: appellate court found a plausible statutory/duty theory as to nondisclosure of residency shortage but held plaintiff failed to plead those specific concealment allegations in count II; dismissal of that portion modified to without prejudice to allow repleading; other concealment bases dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Kolegas v. Heftel Broadcasting Corp., 154 Ill.2d 1 (Illinois 1992) (standards for 2-615 motion and accepting well-pleaded facts)
- Bryson v. News America Publications, Inc., 174 Ill.2d 77 (Illinois 1996) (pleading standards and inferences on a 2-615 motion)
- Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., 174 Ill.2d 482 (Illinois 1996) (elements of fraud)
- Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 216 Ill.2d 100 (Illinois 2005) (puffing doctrine and when sales rhetoric is nonactionable)
- W.W. Vincent & Co. v. First Colony Life Ins. Co., 351 Ill. App. 3d 752 (Ill. App. Ct.) (half-truths and when technically true statements may be misleading)
- Bauer v. Giannis, 359 Ill. App. 3d 897 (Ill. App. Ct.) (elements of fraudulent concealment and duty to disclose)
- Zimmerman v. Northfield Real Estate, Inc., 156 Ill. App. 3d 154 (Ill. App. Ct.) (when a plaintiff’s failure to investigate is excused by defendant’s statements creating false security)
- Ross v. Creighton Univ., 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992) (educational malpractice analysis; limits on tort liability for academic admissions/outcomes)