Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Frankola v. Louisiana State University School of Medicine In New Orleans

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

January 26, 2017

KATHRYN FRANKOLA
v.
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

         SECTION: “H” (5)

          ORDER AND REASONS

          JANE TRICHE MILAZZO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is Defendant Board of Supervisors for Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 29). For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED IN PART.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Kathryn Frankola alleges that she was not readmitted to the Louisiana State University School of Medicine in New Orleans (“LSU School of Medicine”) after she took medical leave in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Rehabilitation Act”), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”), and state law.

         Plaintiff began attending LSU School of Medicine in the fall of 2010. At the outset, the administration was made aware of Plaintiff's bipolar disorder. Plaintiff alleges that despite her condition and a manic episode that occurred in the fall of 2010, she was treated as a regular student and not given any additional accommodations. She alleges that her requests for accommodations were denied in several separate instances from 2010 to 2014.

         In the spring of 2011, Plaintiff failed her Physiology course and was dismissed from the school. Plaintiff then retook and passed the course at the University of Vermont and was readmitted to the LSU School of Medicine for her second year in the fall of 2012. In her first semester back, Plaintiff failed another course, Pathology. She was allowed to retake Pathology in the summer of 2013 but again failed the course. She alleges that her failure was the result of the denial of certain test taking accommodations. In light of her failure to complete the curriculum, however, Plaintiff was placed on academic probation and required to repeat her entire second year. As a condition of academic probation, Plaintiff would be dismissed if she failed another course.

         In the fall of 2013, Plaintiff became pregnant. Plaintiff discussed her options with Dean of Students Joseph Delcarpio, and it was decided that she take a medical leave of absence in light of her pregnancy and bipolar disorder. Plaintiff alleges that Delcarpio informed her that all that was required to resume classes was a “Fit for Duty” letter.

         In November 2014, Plaintiff submitted her “Fit for Duty” letter to return to school. She alleges that she was required to go through the readmission process and that readmission was denied. Plaintiff alleges that she was not informed that there were any risks associated with taking medical leave or that she would be required to be readmitted. Plaintiff appealed the University's decision, and the appeal was denied in January 2015. This suit followed. Plaintiff alleges that she was not allowed readmission because of her pregnancy and bipolar disorder.

         Defendant Board of Supervisors for Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College has filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because they are either prescribed or unsubstantiated. This Court will consider each argument in turn.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”[1] A genuine issue of fact exists only “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”[2]

         In determining whether the movant is entitled to summary judgment, the Court views facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draws all reasonable inferences in his favor.[3] “If the moving party meets the initial burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to produce evidence or designate specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial.”[4] Summary judgment is appropriate if the non-movant “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case.”[5] “In response to a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must identify specific evidence in the record and articulate the manner in which that evidence supports that party's claim, and such evidence must be sufficient to sustain a finding in favor of the non-movant on all issues as to which the non- movant would bear the burden of proof at trial.”[6] “We do not . . . in the absence of any proof, assume that the nonmoving party could or would prove the necessary facts.”[7] Additionally, “[t]he mere argued existence of a factual dispute will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion.”[8]

         LAW AND ANALYSIS

         A. Prescription

         Defendant first alleges that many of Plaintiff's claims are prescribed. Defendant points out that the prescriptive period for all of Plaintiff's claims is one year.[9] Therefore, claims relating to any incident that occurred outside of one year of suit are prescribed. Plaintiff makes several claims regarding Defendant's failure to provide accommodations for her disability, which occurred outside of the prescriptive period. Plaintiff argues that prescription does not apply to eliminate these claims, however, because her claims did not accrue until she had exhausted the appeals process. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.