Gurbani v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp., 185 A.3d 760

Background

Dr. Barkha Gurbani, an orthopaedic surgery resident at Johns Hopkins, was placed on probation and then dismissed after faculty evaluations identified deficiencies in clinical knowledge, motor/surgical skills, decisionmaking, and professionalism; she exhausted the university grievance process which upheld the dismissal.
Residency contracts (2011, 2012) mixed employment and educational terms, promised regular evaluation and supervision, allowed probation/termination for performance, and referenced grievance procedures; probation letter set remediation expectations but was labeled guidelines.
Gurbani alleged the university breached the contracts and the implied covenant, tortiously interfered, and negligently retained/supervised faculty; she also alleged bad‑faith/retaliatory motives by two attending physicians and the program director.
The circuit court granted summary judgment for defendants; the court concluded academic‑deference principles (Hunter and related authority) bar contract and negligence claims that effectively attack academic evaluations/decisions.
On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed: it held dismissal was an academic decision entitled to deference, any arguable procedural breaches did not causally produce the dismissal damages, and there was insufficient particularized evidence of bad faith or malicious intent to defeat summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hunter’s bar on judicial review of evaluation‑based educational claims applies to a private medical residency dismissal	Hunter should not apply to an adult physician under contract with a private medical school; contract claims survive	Academic deference extends to residency dismissals; courts should not second‑guess professional judgments	Applied Hunter and federal precedent; dismissal was an academic decision entitled to deference — plaintiff’s contract/negligence claims barred insofar as they attack substance of dismissal
Whether alleged breaches of specific contractual promises (timely written evaluations, midyear written summary, probation notice/process) support damages causally linked to dismissal	University breached identifiable promises distinct from educational quality; those breaches caused the dismissal and resulting damages	Contract terms were not sufficiently specific/objective; probation letter was guidelines; any procedural lapses did not proximately cause dismissal	Even accepting some procedural lapses, plaintiff failed to show those breaches caused her dismissal/damages (too speculative); summary judgment affirmed
Whether negligent retention/supervision claims (of faculty) lie where complaints attack quality of education/evaluations	University negligently retained/supervised faculty who allegedly produced improper evaluations	Such claims sound in educational negligence and are barred by Hunter/policy reasons against judicial oversight	Rejected: negligent‑retention/supervision claims barred when they effectively challenge academic performance/evaluations
Whether there was sufficient evidence of bad faith, retaliatory motive, or malicious intent to permit contract, tortious‑interference, or individual liability claims	Faculty acted in bad faith/retaliation (conspiracy to fabricate evaluations); individual defendants acted outside scope of employment	No direct evidence of animus; allegations are speculative, conclusory, and inconsistent with contemporaneous independent evaluations; employees acted within scope	Insufficient particularized factual evidence of bad faith or malicious intent; conspiracy/retaliation theory speculative; summary judgment proper for university and individual defendants

Key Cases Cited

Hunter v. Bd. of Educ. of Montgomery Cnty., 292 Md. 481 (Md. 1982) (courts decline to entertain negligence or breach claims based on alleged errors in educational evaluation/process)
Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1978) (dismissal for academic reasons rests on expert academic judgment and is not readily amenable to judicial procedures)
Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1985) (judicial review of substantive academic decisions requires deference unless decision is a substantial departure from accepted academic norms)
Gupta v. New Britain Gen. Hosp., 687 A.2d 111 (Conn. 1996) (residency dismissal is an academic decision; contractual and good‑faith claims fail absent proof of bad faith or lack of rational basis)
Alden v. Georgetown Univ., 734 A.2d 1103 (D.C. 1999) (courts generally defer to academic judgments, especially at private institutions)