Sharick v. Southeastern University of Health Sciences, Inc.
780 So. 2d 136 (2000)
Rule of Law:
When a private university wrongfully dismisses a student in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith, thereby breaching the implied contract to award a degree, the student is entitled to seek damages for the loss of future earning capacity that would have resulted from obtaining the degree.
Facts:
- Keith M. Sharick enrolled as a student in the College of Osteopathic Medicine at Southeastern University of the Health Sciences, Inc.
- Southeastern's publications and student handbook indicated that its four-year curriculum was designed to lead to a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) degree.
- Sharick successfully completed the vast majority of his academic and clinical requirements over four years.
- Less than two months before he was scheduled to graduate, Sharick was participating in his final required course, a rural rotation in general medicine.
- Southeastern assigned Sharick a failing grade for this final rotation.
- As a direct result of this failing grade, Southeastern dismissed Sharick from the university, preventing him from obtaining his DO degree.
Procedural Posture:
- Keith M. Sharick engaged in several unsuccessful internal appeals within Southeastern University.
- Sharick filed a complaint against Southeastern in the state trial court, alleging breach of an implied-in-fact contract.
- The trial court limited Sharick's potential damages to tuition expenses, disallowing his claim for loss of future earning capacity.
- A jury found in favor of Sharick, concluding Southeastern's decision to dismiss him was arbitrary and capricious, and awarded him a partial reimbursement of his tuition.
- Sharick, as appellant, appealed the trial court's ruling on damages to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. Southeastern, as appellee, did not cross-appeal the jury's finding of liability.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
For a breach of an implied contract, does a medical student who was wrongfully dismissed by a private university shortly before graduation have the right to plead and prove damages for loss of future earning capacity, rather than being limited to a reimbursement of tuition expenses?
Opinions:
Majority - Sorondo, J.
Yes. A wrongfully dismissed medical student has the right to prove damages for loss of future earning capacity because the implied contract with a private university is for an educational experience designed to lead to a degree, not merely for educational services. The purpose of contract damages is to place the injured party in the position they would have been in but for the breach. Limiting damages to tuition reimbursement is insufficient, as the value of a professional medical degree significantly exceeds the tuition costs. The university's publications clearly established that the ultimate goal of the contract was the conferral of a DO degree, making the loss of future earnings a foreseeable consequence of the breach. Although future damages must be proven with certainty, where the defendant's wrongful act causes the difficulty in proving the exact amount, the defendant cannot complain of the resulting uncertainty, so long as the fact of damage is certain.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of recoverable damages for students who are wrongfully dismissed from private educational institutions. It moves beyond the traditional remedy of tuition reimbursement, treating the student-university relationship more like a commercial contract where expectation damages, including lost future profits (or earning capacity), are recoverable. The ruling establishes that the 'product' being purchased by the student is not just education, but the degree and the professional opportunities it unlocks. This precedent increases the financial liability for universities that engage in arbitrary, capricious, or bad-faith academic dismissals, compelling them to adhere more strictly to their own established procedures and standards.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Sharick v. Southeastern University of Health Sciences, Inc. (2000)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"