524 F. App'x 62
5th Cir.2013Background
- Ekmark, a former psychiatry resident at UTHSC, was suspended from patient-care duties after an improper relationship was alleged with a VA patient.
- UTHSC notified the Texas Medical Board, which suspended Ekmark’s physician-in-training permit.
- The VA conducted its own investigation and revoked Ekmark’s privileges at VA facilities; UTHSC placed the matter on hold.
- During the suspension, Ekmark could not complete clinical duties or obtain the psychiatry certification, though he was paid through year’s end.
- Ekmark requested a formal grievance hearing but never received one; the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants.
- The court held residents are students, not employees, and that the due-process protections for academic actions are minimal; even if Ekmark had a property interest, the process provided was sufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ekmark had a protected property interest in residency/certification | Ekmark asserts a property interest | Ekmark is a student, not an employee; no property interest | No protected property interest; process adequate |
| Whether a formal grievance hearing was required | Formal hearing demanded under due process | Hearing not required; notice suffices | Not required; minimal notice suffices |
| Whether VA actions impacted the need for due-process hearing | VA findings necessitate hearing | Disciplinary actions were academic and controlled by program leaders | Academic nature allows minimal procedures; hearing not mandated |
| Whether the university’s and VA’s disciplinary actions deprived Ekmark of due process | Actions deprived him of certification | Due process satisfied by notice and academic determination | Ekmark received sufficient process; denial of certification based on academic evaluation |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (property interests protected after already acquired benefits)
- Davis v. Mann, 882 F.2d 967 (5th Cir. 1989) (due process for students in academic settings)
- Shaboon v. Duncan, 252 F.3d 722 (5th Cir. 2001) (students not entitled to employee-level due process in academia)
- Horowitz v. Univ. of Mo., 435 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1978) (minimal procedures for academic actions; no full hearing required)
- Levitt v. Univ. of Texas at El Paso, 759 F.2d 1224 (5th Cir. 1985) (institutional procedures do not set constitutional floor for due process)