are all of so so that the institutional defendants say that they are accredited and that's a that's a true statement if that's not false ok and then they say we comply with those standards get which is that different than saying you make the grade for their accreditation ok yes however these council standards require that they publish that they complied by standards in part we relied on the cuts to standards which required that they be pleaded that they be published st s to get the heat rule against review of academic judgments courts generally if you got apply that to procedural protections for the against review of academic judgment the academic work but the other requires procedures after that determination is made and those procedures are we asked the instructors have to try and figure out why th should make the attempt to get this student back on track to see if you can ultimately he or she can ultimately be successful in the program and that is a procedural protection for the student that should not be subject to the rule against review of academic decisions because it's not an academic decision it's a procedural protection second rights of health care basically every court has held that regardless of whether any instructor dresses his or her dismissal as an academic decision so there are cases from around the country which find that this could be an arbitrary capricious going into a couple of their defenses one of the things they argue is that m it is an objective standard for this type of applied contract where the student should reasonably understand that when he or she applies and is accepted to a school that for twelve which is near the completion of his nd year get read getting ready to start his rd year he was placed on a thirty day probation for numerous specifically articulated reasons which are approximately nine that he or take to killings for the remaining alligator for the make make remaining criticisms he claims that they were distorted or grossly overstated or that the criticism was wrongful your honour's have this very long complained when the review allegations other than these conclusory allegations i believe that they revealed the plaintiff does not allege that these incidents that were reference in the criticisms were truly created out of whole cloth but rather she does he disagrees with the characterization of the event he says for instance that there was one event where he did not say he was criticized despite the fact of the student home and despite the fact that the student handbook for the for the north shore program the student handbook because we have more than one document the plan claims has contractual obligations says for the multiple sections that there was a detailed specific process for conflict resolution complaint resolution and appeals from probations and ha plaintiff did nothing to attempt to appeal the decision to place him on probation in august th his proceeding he was placed on probation july two thousand and twelve did nothing to go to challenge it then these allegations that he claims are false i was twenty fell twelve his probation was reviewed and extended he did nothing after that to say that these things were or were false or challenge it through race as they have most objective system that by the way the  decision makers included according to the handbook which is part of the complaint which is incorporated in the complaint part of plaintiff's allegations whether he likes it or not among us sputter nursing students would be part of the panel that made a decision and in september nd he claims he was confronted with the ultimatum to either withdraw or they were going to kick him out he didn't he could not pursue his rights which we don't dispute our rights under the hand rather some fighters later he files a lawsuit against north shore diversity in this preceptors and his instructors similarly situated are not stuck with his conclusory version of what the handbook says no that's true or of what these standards which i agree w saying they made it up we're getting into because he says it that they're making it up but then what but out of out of the other side of his mouth he says well it's that they didn't get provided to me these are formative you were being pulled into exactly what the course fell in the way of prohibited courts from doing which is nd guessing monday morning quarterbacking academic decisions this isn't a situation where he wasn't given here this actually betray that none of them were made up without clockwork well what is that sufficient to ignore the nine or eight other reasons why the that were that were documented that were that he disagrees with because he thinks there are great they were exaggerated is that is that sufficient to overcome those reasons if we kick out handbook says we provide a course of study the curriculum required to be accredited by this council that's what it says nothing else and you don't have to take again his word for what the imposed upon his advisor the obligation to take him by the hand this person who wants to be a nurse anesthetist and hold people's lives in his hands and walk through a procedure which is on the one page of the handbook is st with the procedure is and explaining to underneath the heading of probation it's a bear but the specific procedure is he says that the advisor from north shore breached an obligation to point out to him that he had a power of rights and to counsel him that he had a color rights and to execute for him beat down on him in the in front of the administration and in fact if you turn to the handbook and  student has an obligation to make contact with his visor quarterly to discuss clinical performance the onus is on the student not the advisor to recheck there is no mention whatsoever not even implicit and three or elsewhere that the advisor has an obligation to advise a student of their appeal rights there is no question whatsoever that the advisor has an obligation to provide feedback related to performance there is no reference implicit or otherwise anywhere that the advisor has an obligation to advocate for the student if you want to discuss something that's made out of  according to the handbook at that site look at the hymn book and look at the allegations in plaintiff's complaint as to what the handbook says according to him versus what it actually says and look at the allegations in the complaint regarding what the there was a failure to adequately document deficiencies in performance by the school there's a failure to warn of alleged deficiencies by the school there was a failure to follow the field instruction manual that the school and their court standard that courts apply to reach a contract things in the academic context the courts have held that they will fight arbitrary and capricious conduct only where there is no discernible rational basis for the academic decision several court but it that's a heavy burden and it's even heavier where university is responsible for awarding a medical degree because the university is in fact certifying that the student will be able to safely serve the public because of the level of ministered anaesthesia properly whether he was properly organized whether he was whether he was able to track the end of his cases as they went along and multitasking think critically might be staying within the course facts he has had three bites of the apple and he has not put any specific facts detailing the basis for his belief that there is a personality conflict how it was manifested what was he to me in a certain case when he was written up for let's say not having surgical tools at the bedside why aren't those specific facts in the case and the nd amended if we strip away all of the conclusions and characterizations fronts allegations we are left with an essential it used by one of the faculty members of the plaintiff's work or a personal relationship personal interest between the plaintiff and one of the faculty members who was about to wait for it still didn't rise to the level of arbitrary  never have had its hands on in the st place and so in some your honor the allegations in the complaint themselves demonstrate that north shore exercise academic judgement in the serious context of act in a student or a medical procedures that the pla me is that if you breach the contract before it at some point which we argued against it to show defendants did that generally puts an end to the other party having to job but on the other side of it he could have done the job maybe if the formative evaluation process had been properly carried out and his alleged flaws were addressed by  point out that we can reach and have the ability to try to prove that this stuff was that these allegations were made up by showing an equal treatment by impeaching