28.11.2014 Views

Medical Students with Disabilities: A Generation of Practice

Medical Students with Disabilities: A Generation of Practice

Medical Students with Disabilities: A Generation of Practice

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Medical</strong> <strong>Students</strong> <strong>with</strong> <strong>Disabilities</strong>:<br />

A <strong>Generation</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Practice</strong><br />

remaining on the wait list, the University<br />

<strong>of</strong>fered the applicant a place in its minority<br />

admission program, which was designed<br />

to prepare minority and disadvantaged<br />

persons for future admission to the<br />

medical school. The University guaranteed<br />

admission to the medical school to<br />

program participants who, among other<br />

requirements, maintained a 2.75 grade<br />

point average (GPA) per semester,<br />

received no grade lower than a “C”, and<br />

performed satisfactorily in accordance<br />

<strong>with</strong> a faculty committee’s standards. The<br />

student failed to achieve the minimum<br />

GPA required by the program and was<br />

subsequently diagnosed <strong>with</strong> a learning<br />

disorder. After being diagnosed, the<br />

student was provided extra time on the<br />

remainder <strong>of</strong> his examinations. Although<br />

the student’s examination scores improved<br />

<strong>with</strong> the extra time, his cumulative GPA<br />

still did not meet the minimum required<br />

and he was not admitted to the<br />

University’s medical school. The court<br />

held that the applicant’s failure to obtain<br />

the University’s objective GPA requirement<br />

was a legitimate, non-disability based<br />

reason for the University’s decision to<br />

dismiss the applicant from the preadmission<br />

program, 183 and that the<br />

University was not required to lower its<br />

admission standards and admit the<br />

applicant. 184<br />

B. Accommodations in Degree<br />

Requirements<br />

An institution is not required to waive<br />

course requirements that are an integral<br />

component <strong>of</strong> the academic program.<br />

In a case involving a student’s request<br />

that her work experience be substituted<br />

for two required courses in the school’s<br />

pharmacy program in order to accommodate<br />

her disability, the OCR held the<br />

college was not required to waive its<br />

required program courses. The student’s<br />

request was denied by the school on<br />

the basis that the courses were “an integral<br />

component <strong>of</strong> the program in that<br />

they presented. . . critical technical<br />

information regarding drugs that was<br />

essential not only to the program but the<br />

practice <strong>of</strong> pharmacy as well.” 185<br />

Similarly, in Guckenberger v. Boston<br />

University, 186 the court held that the<br />

University was not required to waive the<br />

foreign language requirements <strong>of</strong> its<br />

liberal arts curriculum for students <strong>with</strong><br />

disabilities on the basis that the foreign<br />

language requirement was an important<br />

component <strong>of</strong> the overall program. 187<br />

If a student <strong>with</strong> a disability is able to<br />

show that a required course is not necessary<br />

to the program in which the student is<br />

enrolled, the institution may be required<br />

to waive the course requirement as a<br />

means <strong>of</strong> accommodating the student.<br />

The OCR found that an institution<br />

violated Section 504 by refusing to allow<br />

a student <strong>with</strong> a learning disability to<br />

substitute another course for a required<br />

algebra course. 188 The institution did not<br />

demonstrate that the algebra course was<br />

essential to the program, and the student’s<br />

academic advisors believed that other<br />

courses could be substituted. Perhaps the<br />

most troublesome fact weighing against<br />

the institution was the dean’s denial <strong>of</strong><br />

the course substitution <strong>with</strong>out obtaining<br />

information as to whether the substitution<br />

was appropriate or necessary.<br />

<strong>Practice</strong> Tip: Where a required course is<br />

an essential element <strong>of</strong> the overall program,<br />

the school is not required to waive the<br />

requirement as an accommodation.<br />

<strong>Medical</strong> schools should prospectively analyze<br />

which course requirements are essential to<br />

a student’s medical education and limit its<br />

requirements to those identified courses.<br />

Other course <strong>of</strong>ferings should be treated as<br />

electives. With respect to the requirements<br />

<strong>of</strong> individual courses, schools should consider<br />

which elements are essential. For example,<br />

certain types <strong>of</strong> examinations may be<br />

given <strong>with</strong> additional time, while it may<br />

be essential that other examinations be<br />

taken <strong>with</strong> time limitations. To the extent<br />

that a test-taking condition is so essential<br />

that it goes to the fundamental nature <strong>of</strong><br />

the course, that condition need not be<br />

modified, even for the purpose <strong>of</strong> disability<br />

accommodation.<br />

C. Accommodations in Clinical<br />

Requirements<br />

In the same manner that schools are not<br />

required to waive course requirements<br />

that are integral to the overall program,<br />

schools are not required to waive clinical<br />

requirements when they are an integral<br />

part <strong>of</strong> the program. The Supreme Court<br />

addressed the issue <strong>of</strong> accommodations<br />

to clinical requirements in the case<br />

Southeastern Community College v.<br />

Davis. 189 As discussed above, 190 the court<br />

held the school did not violate Section<br />

504 by denying admission to its nursing<br />

program to a deaf applicant because the<br />

student would only be able to participate<br />

in the academic component <strong>of</strong> the<br />

program. Waiving the clinical component<br />

<strong>of</strong> the nursing program would have<br />

resulted in a fundamental alteration to<br />

the program, and fundamental alterations<br />

are beyond the modifications required by<br />

Section 504. 191<br />

183<br />

Id. at 799.<br />

184<br />

Id.<br />

185<br />

North Seattle Community College, 10 Nat’l Disab.<br />

L. Rep. (LRP Publications) 42 (August 23, 1996).<br />

186<br />

8 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D. Mass. 1998).<br />

187<br />

Id. at 89.<br />

188<br />

Complaint No. 06-90-2084 (OCR Region VI 1991).<br />

189<br />

442 U.S. 397 (1979).<br />

190<br />

See supra notes 44–46; 137–138; 145–147; 171–173.<br />

191<br />

Id. at 410.<br />

22 Association <strong>of</strong> American <strong>Medical</strong> Colleges, 2005

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!