TULP v. EDUCATIONAL COMMISSION FOR FOREIGN MEDICAL GRADUATES
2:18-cv-05540
E.D. Pa.Jun 25, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Orien Tulp, president of University of Science, Arts, and Technology (USAT), was investigated by ECFMG after reports that USAT operated U.S.-based branch/class sites (Miami, Tampa, Dallas).
- ECFMG requested documentation that the Miami site was authorized as a medical school; Tulp denied a branch campus existed and certified certain student attendance dates.
- ECFMG collected affidavits from >300 students reporting U.S. attendance and referred allegations that Tulp provided false information to its Medical Education Credentials Committee under its publicly posted Policies and Procedures Regarding Irregular Behavior.
- Tulp was given written notice, copies of materials, an opportunity to submit a written response, and a scheduled in-person hearing (20 minutes) at which he appeared with counsel but declined to present testimony or evidence beyond an opening statement; the hearing was ended after he refused to present evidence.
- The Credentials Committee found Tulp engaged in irregular behavior and imposed disciplinary measures (refusal to accept his certified documents for at least five years, Sponsor Note update, permanent record annotation); Tulp did not seek reconsideration and then sued claiming common-law due process violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ECFMG, a private organization, owed common-law due process when disciplining Tulp | Tulp argued ECFMG’s disciplinary proceeding deprived him of due process | ECFMG argued it is a quasi-public organization that followed its published procedures and afforded notice and opportunity to be heard | Court: ECFMG owed common-law due process (quasi-public) but satisfied it by following its procedures and providing notice and hearing opportunities |
| Whether ECFMG adhered to its published Policies and Procedures Regarding Irregular Behavior | Tulp suggested the process (esp. the November 28 hearing) was inadequate | ECFMG showed it followed each step of its policies: investigation, notice, document production, written response option, hearing, decision, and appeal notice | Court: ECFMG complied with its own procedures; procedural requirement met |
| Whether notice and opportunity to be heard were adequate | Tulp claimed the hearing was too brief, lacked live witness testimony, and denied cross-examination, depriving him of meaningful hearing | ECFMG argued due process does not require full judicial protections; written submissions plus an in-person hearing suffice; Tulp declined to present evidence | Court: Notice and opportunity to be heard were adequate under common-law due process; hearing satisfied minimal fairness requirements |
| Whether early termination of the hearing violated due process | Tulp argued termination denied him the chance to present his case | ECFMG argued Tulp and counsel declined to present evidence, so termination followed their choice | Court: Termination did not violate due process because Tulp voluntarily refused to present evidence after being given the opportunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolf v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974) (overview of due process protection against arbitrary action)
- Sch. Dist. of City of Harrisburg v. Pa. Interscholastic Athletic Ass’n, 309 A.2d 353 (Pa. 1973) (recognizing common-law due process duty for private bodies exercising public functions)
- Psi Upsilon of Phila. v. Univ. of Pa., 591 A.2d 755 (Pa. Super. 1991) (organizations must follow their own procedural safeguards)
- Boehm v. Univ. of Pa. Sch. of Veterinary Med., 573 A.2d 575 (Pa. Super. 1990) (due process satisfied where institution followed its code and afforded notice/hearing)
- McKeesport Hosp. v. Accreditation Council for Graduate Med. Educ., 24 F.3d 519 (3d Cir. 1994) (discussion of common-law due process requirements for quasi-public accrediting bodies)
- Biliski v. Red Clay Consol. Sch. Bd. of Educ., 574 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 2009) (due process requires opportunity to present one’s side in person or in writing)
- Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (opportunity to present reasons against proposed action is a core due process requirement)