Report #394

DATE: February 12, 2018

PARTIES: Y.L. (“the Student”) v. the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy (the “Faculty”)
Hearing Date(s): January 15, 2018
Committee Members:
Professor Andrew Green (Chair)
Professor Nicholas Terpstra, Faculty Governor
Mr. Twesh Upadhyaya, Student Governor
Mr. Christopher Lang, Director, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
For the Student Appellant:
Y.L. (the Student)
For the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy:
Mr. Robert A. Centa, Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenbert Rothstein LLP
Ms. Emily Home, Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenbert Rothstein LLP
Ms. Brenda Thrush, Registrar, The Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy
Professor Jamie Kellar, The Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy
UT – Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy – petition to re-write a supplemental exam – fair assessment of exam – appeal dismissed
Student appeal from a decision of the Committee of Appeals of the Faculty which dismissed his petition to write a second supplemental examination in PHM 206 (the “Course”). The Student had failed the Course, and was provided with the opportunity to write a supplemental exam. The Student failed this supplemental exam, and was told that he would be required to take the Course again before he could advance to the next year in his doctoral program. The Student appealed this decision and petitioned the Committee of Appeals for the opportunity to write another supplemental exam on the basis that his first supplemental exam process was unfair. The Committee of Appeals denied this petition.
In his appeal, the Student argued that the supplemental exam process was unfair because the mock-patient had not provided the Student with a prescription at the start of the encounter, the way past examinations had proceeded. The Student also argued that the assessor unfairly deducted points for missing a particular set of questions even though the Student believed that he had asked those questions and since the interview was not recorded, he was deprived of the opportunity to prove this alleged mistake. The Committee found that the decision to deny the second supplemental exam was reasonable because the Course was designed to teach students real life patient skills, so the Student should have been prepared to react to any deviation from past mock-interviews. Second, the patient had not been instructed by the Course instructor to hand over a prescription without being asked for it, so she had not failed to do anything that she was supposed to do. Third, supplemental exams involve clinical situations that are meant to be varied. The Faculty’s policy not to record the exams was not considered to be unfair, and their decision to deny the Student the opportunity to write yet another supplemental exam was reasonable in the circumstances. Appeal dismissed.