Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 09-29-2023

Case Style:

Dr. Vishal Saxena v. University of Massachusetts Medical School

Case Number: 4:19-cv-40007

Judge: Timothy S. Hillman

Court: United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Worcester County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:



Click Here For The Best Worcester Civil Rights Lawyer Directory




Defendant's Attorney: Jonathan R. Sigel and Brian M. Casaceli

Description: Worcester, Massachusetts civil rights lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendants on an Americans With Disability Act violation theory.


This action arises out of the former academic relationship between Defendant, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (the “Medical School” or “the School”), and its former student, Vishal Saxena (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff's Complaint - first filed on January 7, 2019 and later amended on May 15, 2019 - asserts four remaining claims against the Medical School: Counts IV & VI allege disability discrimination in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“the “Rehabilitation Act”) and Counts V & VII allege retaliation in violation of Title V of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.


Plaintiff was accepted at the Medical School in May 2014 and received an Acceptance Letter, which among other things, identified how to begin the process of applying for academic

6

accommodations. The Acceptance Letter also instructed students requesting a reasonable accommodation for a disability to reach out to Dr. Deborah Harmon Hines (“Dr. Hines”), co-Chair of the Academic Accommodations Committee (“AAC”). and contained Dr. Hines' contact information.

Plaintiff testified that he considered himself as having a disability at that time and conceded that it would have been reasonable form him to reach out to Dr. Harmon-Hines prior to starting at the Medical School concerning the accommodation process. Plaintiff did not contact anyone at the Medical School following his acceptance or during the summer of 2014 to notify the Medical School of his alleged reactivity to formaldehyde or to request an academic accommodation. On September 25, 2014, Plaintiff contacted his instructor of the DSF course, Associate Professor Anne Gilroy (“Prof. Gilroy”), to notify her about his alleged reactivity to formaldehyde. Plaintiff testified that he knew that Prof. Gilroy was not the correct person he should have contacted, per the Acceptance Letter.

At the time Plaintiff contacted Prof. Gilroy, she was out of the country and would not be return until October 6, 2014. Given that the first anatomy lab of DSF was scheduled for October 1, 2014, Prof. Gilroy contacted her colleagues, Dr. Susan Gagliardi, Vice Chair of Medical Education, Department of Cell Biology, and Chair of the FOM1 Curriculum Committee and Michael Doyle, Lab Manager at the Medical School, for assistance. At the time Prof. Gilroy was not aware that, in order for Plaintiff to pursue an academic accommodation for DSF, Plaintiff needed to contact the AAC. Prof. Gilroy did know, however, that she did not have the ability or authority to grant academic accommodations for students. Dr. Gagliardi was aware of the timeliness of her response to give Plaintiff the best opportunity to participate in the anatomy lab on October 1, 2014.

At the time Dr. Gagliardi made her inquiries on September 25, 2014, she was not aware that, in order for a medical student to receive academic accommodations at the Medical School, the student needed to go through the AAC. That same day, Dr. Gagliardi was told that Plaintiff would need to be evaluated by the Medical School's Student Health Services (“Student Heath”) and conveyed this information to Plaintiff the same day. Dr. Gagliardi was under the impression that the Medical School's Office of Environmental Health & Services (“EHS”) would work with Student Health to implement any action needed and told this to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff was evaluated in Student Health by Dr. Joseph DiFranza (“Dr. DiFranza”) on September 30, 2014. Dr. DiFranza's conclusion based on his evaluation was that Plaintiff has “irritant symptoms when exposed to formaldehyde (watery eyes, burning nose, throat, lungs, dizzy, headache). Nothing life threatening…” Dr. Gagliardi shared Dr. DiFranza's conclusion with Deborah Campbell, the Medical School's Environmental Health and Safety Manager (“Ms. Campbell”), on October 1, 2014. Dr. Gagliardi notified Ms. Campbell to give her the opportunity to make suggestions concerning how to help Plaintiff, including fitting him with protective gear. Dr. Gagliardi learned that Plaintiff's takeaway from his evaluation by Dr. DiFranza was that he could not enter the anatomy laboratory, even with protective equipment in place, which Dr. DiFranza denied. Dr. Gagliardi believed at the time that Plaintiff was not medically prohibited from entering the anatomy lab. Plaintiff did not attend the anatomy lab on October 1, 2014.

On October 2, 2014, Dr. Gagliardi learned from Dr. Hines that in order to be accommodated for working in the gross anatomy lab, Plaintiff needed to contact Dr. Hines. Dr. Gagliardi also learned, for the first time, that Plaintiff's request for an academic accommodation fell under the purview of the AAC. Upon learning of the Medical School's process for applying for academic accommodations, Dr. Gagliardi immediately notified Plaintiff. In reply, Plaintiff thanked Dr. Gagliardi for her “kind email” and wrote that he “really appreciate[d] [her] help.”...


Defendant moved for summary judgment.

Outcome: 1. The Medical School's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 124) is granted;

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 127) is denied;

3. The Medical School's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts (Docket No. 139) is granted;

4. The Medical School's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Opposition (Docket No. 147) to its Motion is granted in part and denied in part;

5. Plaintiff's Motion to Accept Affidavit in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 154) is denied;

6. Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal (Docket No. 180) is denied;

7. Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal (Docket No. 182) is denied; and

8. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Electronically (Docket No. 186) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

11/09/2023 201 Filing fee/payment: $ 505.00, receipt number 100005398 for 196 Notice of Appeal, (Phillips, Sophie) (Entered: 11/09/2023)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: