Opinion ID: 1803833
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Property interest in the letter of recommendation

Text: Defendants contend Dr. Driscoll did not have a constitutionally sufficient property interest in the mere recommendation that he be allowed to take a written examination, which might, or might not, ultimately result in certification, to entitle him to due process. Dr. Driscoll, on the other hand, contends the lower courts properly determined he possessed a property and liberty interest within the meaning of due process as provided in La. Const. Ann. art. I, § 2. Dr. Driscoll further argues the lower courts also found he had a vested contractual interest in the recommendation that he was worthy of examination by the American Board of Otolaryngology upon his successful completion of LSUHSC's residency program. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in pertinent part, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. In addition, La. Const. Ann. art. I, § 2 provides [n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, except by due process of law. To obtain protection under the due process clause, a person must have more than an abstract need or desire for the liberty or property interest and must have more than a unilateral expectation of the interest; instead, the person must have a legitimate claim of entitlement to the interest. Acadian Ambulance Service v. Parish of East Baton Rouge, 97-2199 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/6/98), 722 So.2d 317, writ denied, 98-2995 (La.12/9/98), 729 So.2d 583. Existing rules or understandings stemming from independent sources such as state law create and shape what property interests are subject to due process protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). Explicit contractual provisions or other agreements implied from the promissor's words or conduct in light of the surrounding circumstances may also create property interests. Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 601-02, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972). As noted in the Second Circuit opinion in the present case: A number of courts have concluded that medical students and residents possessed property and/or liberty interests in their positions. In Ewing v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Mich., 742 F.2d 913 (6th Cir.1984), reversed on other grounds, 474 U.S. 214, 106 S.Ct. 507, 88 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that a contractual relationship existed between a medical student and his university and proceeded to hold that an implied understanding that a student shall not be arbitrarily dismissed from his university is a property interest, resting in the contractual relationship between the parties, which can give rise to constitutional protections. Similarly, in Ezekwo v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp., 940 F.2d 775 (2nd Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1013, 112 S.Ct. 657, 116 L.Ed.2d 749 (1991), a physician brought an action against a public hospital alleging that her due process rights were violated when she was denied her status as chief resident. One of the issues presented was whether the plaintiff possessed a property interest in obtaining the position of chief resident so as to trigger the due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that the plaintiff did indeed possess a protectable property interest in obtaining the chief resident position based upon the defendant's policies and practices, the defendant's informational materials regarding the residency program, and the plaintiff's reasonable reliance upon these understandings and representations. Ezekwo, supra . Other cases are in accord with the sound principles of Ewing and Ezekwo applying the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Roth. See, e.g., Ong v. Tovey, 552 F.2d 305 (9th Cir.1977) (finding a property interest in surgical residency subject to due process protections); Navato v. Sletten, 560 F.2d 340 (8th Cir.1977) (holding that a physician who was to receive three years of training required for certification in specialty of psychiatry and was then to render two years of service in state mental hospitals possessed property interest in position cognizable under the Fourteenth Amendment); Waliga v. Board of Trustees of Kent State Univ., 22 Ohio St.3d 55, 488 N.E.2d 850 (1986) (a degree holder possesses a property interest in a degree that cannot be taken away except pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures). Driscoll, 865 So.2d at 334. LSUHSC and Dr. Stucker contend their withdrawal of the first recommendation cannot be likened to a degree or a once-issued license. At best, they argue the recommendation constituted a potential prospective enhancement to Dr. Driscoll's resume and opened certain additional employment opportunities. They urge the letter of recommendation was more akin to a prospective promotion. We are not persuaded by this argument. As a threshold matter, we note LSUHSC and Dr. Stucker argued Dr. Stucker's withdrawal letter only recommended the removal of Dr. Driscoll from the next otolaryngology testing; they contend the decision to remove Dr. Driscoll from the list of prospective testing applicants was not theirs to make and was actually made by the American Board of Otolaryngology. After reviewing Dr. Stucker's August 10, 2000 memo to the faculty, it is definite that Dr. Stucker viewed the withdrawal letter as more than just a recommendation. His letter requested that Dr. Driscoll not be allowed to sit for the boards. See supra at 38-39. Equally important, the American Board of Otolaryngology interpreted Dr. Stucker's letter as a withdrawal of his recommendation, as can be seen in its August 22, 2000 letter to Dr. Driscoll, stating we no longer have the required recommendation from your Program Director. Therefore, we find no merit to the argument of LSUHSC and Dr. Stucker in this regard. It cannot be gainsaid that the letter of recommendation enhanced Dr. Driscoll's credentials and opened employment opportunities that otherwise would not exist. In particular, the letter of recommendation was a primary cause in Dr. Driscoll's enrollment at LSUHSC and was a reasonable expectation of his choice of this residency program. LSUHSC expressly highlighted documents specifically stating that [e]ach resident is board eligible upon completion of the program. (R., Vol. IV, at 689). More importantly, the ACGME required LSUHSC to issue the final written evaluation and letter of recommendation when Dr. Driscoll successfully completed his course of study. It is clear the revocation of Dr. Driscoll's letter of recommendation implicated his liberty/property interests. As acknowledged in Dr. Stucker's testimony, the withdrawal of the letter of recommendation would adversely affect Dr. Driscoll's ability to obtain medical staff privileges and the professional options otherwise open to him. The record bears out this is exactly what transpired. Therefore, we find Dr. Driscoll possessed a property and liberty interest within the meaning of due process as provided in La. Const. Ann. art. I, § 2.