Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
v.
PLAINTIFF APPENDIX
VOLUME V OF XII: DOCKET 23.6 (cont.) to 29.1
(Pages A-820 TO A-1023)
___________________________
APPELLANT
Nausheen Zainulabeddin
4730 South Woodlawn Ave. Apt 3D
Chicago, IL 60615
nausheenkhawaja@gmail.com
Pro Se
INDEX
i
Incorporated Memorandum of
Law
II 6-1 3/30/16 Dkt. 6 Exhibit A 223-228
II 9 4/06/16 Case Management and 229-231
Scheduling Order
II 10 4/13/16 Order: Denial of Dkt. 4 232-240
II 11 4/27/16 Defendant’s Answer, Defenses, 241-272
and Affirmative Defenses
II 12 09/08/16 Unopposed Motion to 273-275
Withdraw and for Substitution
of Counsel
II 14 11/09/16 Order Referring Case to 276-280
Mediation and Directing
Selection of a Mediator
II 15 11/29/16 Joint Motion for Enlargement 281-284
of the Discovery and
Dispositive Motion Deadlines
II 17 12/09/16 Notice of Mediator Selection 285-286
and Scheduling of Mediation
II 18 12/13/16 Order Appointing Mediator and 287-288
Scheduling Mediation
II 19 02/01/17 Plaintiff Partially Opposed 289-294
Motion to take Deposition of
Dr. Joanne Valeriano-Mercent
Subsequent to close of
discovery with incorporated
statement of good cause
wherefore
II 19-1 02/01/17 Dkt. 19 Exhibit A: Plaintiff’s 295-297
Notice of Taking Deposition of
Dr. Joanne Valeriano-Marcet
II 20 02/02/17 Granted Order of Dkt. 19 298-299
II 21 02/03/17 Joint Motion to Extend 300-302
Mediation Deadline
ii
II 22 02/04/17 Defendant’s Motion for 303-326
Summary of Judgement
II 23 02/04/17 Defendant’s Notice of Filing 327-328
Deposition Transcripts In
Support of Its Motion for
Summary of Judgement
II & III 23-1 02/04/17 Dkt. 23 Exhibit A, Volume I: 329-448
Plaintiff’s Deposition
Transcript and Exhibits
III 23-2 02/04/17 Dkt. 23 Exhibit A, Volume II: 449-563
Plaintiff’s Deposition
Transcript and Exhibits
III & IV 23-3 02/04/17 Dkt. 23 Exhibit B Deposition 564-650
Transcript of Dr. Deborah Roth
and Exhibits
IV 23-4 02/04/17 Dkt. 23 Exhibit C: Deposition 651-737
Transcript of Dr. Ambuj Kumar
and Exhibits
IV 23-5 02/04/17 Dkt. 23 Exhibit D: Deposition 738-810
Transcript of Dr. Saundra Stock
and Exhibits
IV &V 23-6 02/04/16 Dkt. 23 Exhibit D: Additional 811-871
documents
V 25 02/09/16 Notice of Withdrawal of 872-873
Plaintiff’s Motion to Take
Deposition of Dr. Joanne
Valeriano-Mercet
V 26 02/19/17 Plaintiff’s Statement of 874-885
Disputed Material Facts
V 26-1 02/19/17 Dkt. 26 Exhibit A 886-893
V 26-2 02/19/17 Dkt. 26 Exhibit B 894-898
V 26-3 02/19/17 Dkt. 26 Exhibit C 899-907
V 27 02/19/17 Plaintiff’s Response in 908-927
Opposition to Defendant’s
iii
Motion for Summary
Judgement
V 28 02/19/17 Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing 928-929
Affidavit in Support of
Plaintiff’s Response in
Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary
Judgement
V 28-1 02/19/17 Dkt. 28 Affidavit of Plaintiff 930-956
V 28-2 02/19/17 Dkt. 28 Exhibit A, B, C, D, 957-972
V 28-3 02/19/17 Dkt. 28 Exhibit E 973-980
V 28-4 02/19/17 Dkt. 28 Exhibit F, G, H, 981-995
V 28-5 02/19/17 Dkt. 28 Exhibit I, J, K, L 996-1018
V 29 02/19/17 Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing 1019-1020
Deposition of Steven Specter in
support of Plaintiff’s Response
in Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary
Judgement
V & VI 29-1 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Deposition of Steven 1021-1203
Specter, Ph.D
VI 29-2 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Plaintiff’s Amended 1204-1209
Notice of Taking Deposition of
Dr. Steven Specter
VI 29-3 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 2 1210
VI 29-4 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 3 1212
VI 29-5 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 4 1214
VI 29-6 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 5 1215
VI 29-7 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 6 1216
VI 29-8 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 7 1221
VI 29-9 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 8 1222
VI 29-10 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 9 1223
VI 29-11 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 10 1225
iv
VI & 29-12 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 11 1242
VII
VII 29-13 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 12 1243
VII 29-14 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 13 1244
VII 29-15 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 14 1251
VII 29-16 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 15 1260
VII 29-17 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 16 1269
VII 29-18 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 17 1270
VII 29-19 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 18 1276
VII 29-20 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 19 1284
VII 29-21 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 20 1285
VII 29-22 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 21 1287
VII 30 02/19/17 Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing 1288
Complete Deposition
Transcript of Dr. Ambuj Kumar
in Support of Plaintiff’s
Response in Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion for
Summary of Judgement
VII 30-1 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Deposition 1290-1362
VII 30-2 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 1 1363
VII 30-3 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 2 1364-1365
VII 30-4 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 3 1366-1371
VII 30-5 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 4 1372-1377
VII 30-6 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 5 1378-1396
VII 30-7 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 6 1397
VII 30-8 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 7 1399
VII 30-9 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 8 1401
VII 30-10 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 9 1402
VII 30-11 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 10 1403
VII 30-12 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 11 1405
VII 30-13 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 12 1406
VII 30-14 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 13 1407
v
VII 30-15 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 14 1408
VII 30-16 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 15 1409
VII 30-17 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 16 1410
VII 31 02/27/17 Joint Motion to Extend 1418
Mediation Deadline
VII 33 03/01/17 Defendant’s Motion for Leave 1421
to reply to Plaintiff’s Response
to Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgement
VII 35 03/07/17 Unopposed Motion to 1424
Withdraw and for Substitution
of Counsel
VII 36 03/08/17 Order Granting Dkt. 35 1427
VII 37 03/15/17 Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s 1428
Response in Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion for
Summary of Judgement
VIII 38 03/18/17 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to 1437
File Surreply to Defendant’s
Reply Memorandum to
Plaintiff’s Response in
Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary
Judgement
VIII 40 03/22/17 Mediation Report 1440
VIII 41 03/24/17 Plaintiff’s Surreply to 1442
Defendant’s Reply
Memorandum to Plaintiff’s
Response in Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgement
VIII 41-1 03/24/17 Dkt. 41 Exhibit A 1447
VIII 41-2 03/24/17 Dkt. 41 Exhibit B 1451
vi
VIII 42 04/19/17 Order Granting Summary of 1455-1484
Judgement in Favor of
Defendant
VIII 43 04/20/17 Judgement in Civil Case signed 1485-1486
by Deputy Clerk
VIII 44 04/26/17 Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal to 1487-1488
USCA 11th circuit for Dkt. 42
VIII 46 04/27/17 Transfer of Appeal to USCA 1489-1552
11th Circuit (Dkt. 44).
VIII 47 04/27/17 Application for Leave to 1553-1555
Withdraw as Counsel
VIII 48 05/01/17 Motion for Reconsideration 1556-1581
VIII 48-1 05/01/17 Dkt. 48 Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 14 1582-1641
IX 48-2 05/01/17 Dkt. 48 Exhibit 15 to 32 1642-1720
IX 48-3 05/01/17 Dkt. 48 Exhibit 33 to 43 1721-1806
IX & X 48-4 05/01/17 Dkt. 48 Exhibit 44 to 47 1807-1841
X 48-5 05/01/17 Dkt. 48 Exhibit 48 to 57 1842-1935
X 49 05/01/17 Dkt. 48 Affidavit 1936-1948
X 50 05/01/17 Motion For Recusal 1949
X 50-1 05/01/17 Dkt. 50 Exhibit A to Exhibit I 1973-2042
X 51 05/01/17 Pro Se Motion of Continuance 2043-2046
XI 54 05/03/17 Order Denying Motion for 2047-2049
Reconsideration (Dkt. 48)
XI 55 05/03/17 Defendant’s Motion to Tax 2050-2055
Costs with Verified Bill of
Costs
XI 55-1 05/03/17 Dkt. 55 Exhibit A 2056-2081
XI 56 05/03/17 Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay 2082-2097
District Court Administrative
Proceedings of
(1) Pro Se Motion of
Continuance
(2) Motion for
Reconsideration
vii
(3) Motion of Recusal,
Pending Appeal
XI 56-1 05/03/17 Plaintiff’s Responses and 2098
Objections to Defendant’s First
Set of Interrogatories to
Plaintiff. + Exhibits
XI 59 05/08/17 Directions to Clerk for Notice 2164
of Appeal dated April 26, 2017
XI 59-1 05/08/17 Dkt. 59 Exhibit A 2166
XI 60 05/10/17 Notice of Appeal for Dkt. 57; 2178
dated May 10, 2017
XI 61 05/10/17 IFP of USCA FC 2180
XI 64 05/17/17 Plaintiff Opposition to 2185
Defendant’s Bill of Costs
viii
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court
Last checked: Tuesday Sep 13, 2016 5:04 AM EDT Update Parties
Defendant
Represented By
University of South Florida Board of Trustees
John F. Dickinson
Constangy, Brooks, Smith, & Prophete, LLP
jdickinson@constangy.com
Plaintiff
Represented By
Nausheen Zainulabeddin
Stanley Robert Apps
Stanley R. Apps, P.A.
stan.apps@gmail.com
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 1/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court
ORDER of USCA filed terminating appeal; denying as moot motion to allow efiling19 filed by Appellant
Nausheen Zainulabeddin; denying as moot motion for other relief15 filed by Appellant Nausheen
Zainulabeddin, denying as moot motion for other relief11 filed by Appellant Nausheen Zainulabeddin; denying
as moot motion to correct document14 filed by Appellant Nausheen Zainulabeddin; denying as moot motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis7 filed by Appellant Nausheen Zainulabeddin; denying as moot motion
to correct or supplement record on appeal4 filed by Appellant Nausheen Zainulabeddin. Each side shall bear
its own costs as to70 Notice of appeal filed by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. EOD: 6/20/17; USCA number: 17-
2083 ML. (JNB)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 2/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court
NOTICE to the clerk of corrections needed of docketing errors - May 10, 2017 thru Mary 31, 2017 by
Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(AG)
Att: 1 Exhibit,
Att: 2 Exhibit,
Att: 3 Mailing Envelope
ORDER denying 63 Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal. Signed by Judge James S.
Moody, Jr. on 6/5/2017. (LN)
RESPONSE in Opposition re63 MOTION to supplement Record on Appeal and support for Motion and
Declaration for leave to proceed In Forma Pauperis (issues on appeal, Dkt. 61) to Magistrate Judge filed by
University of South Florida Board of Trustees. (Mans, Lori)
TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet,
order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re70 Notice of appeal,71 Notice of appeal.
(KMM)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 3/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court
68 order Order on motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency Tue 6:02 PM
ORDER granting 61 Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency. Signed by Magistrate
Judge Thomas G. Wilson on 5/23/2017. (Wilson, Thomas)
NOTICE OF APPEAL to USCA as to66 Order on Motion for Taxation of Costs by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.
Filing fee not paid. (KMM)
NOTICE OF APPEAL to Federal Circuit as to42 Order on motion for summary judgment,54 Order on Motion for
ReconsiderationOrder on motion for recusal by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. Filing fee not paid.(KMM)
BILL OF COSTS taxed against Plaintiff in the amount of $5,382.15. Signed by Deputy Clerk. (AD)
ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Tax Costs 55 is granted in part and denied in part as explained herein.
Defendant is entitled to $5,382.15 in costs. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a Bill of Costs in the amount
of $5,382.15 in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 5/19/2017.
(LN)
RESPONSE in Opposition re55 MOTION for Taxation of Costs with Verified Bill of Costs and Supporting
Memorandum of Law filed by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(BSN)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 4/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court
MOTION to supplement Record on Appeal and support for Motion and Declaration for leave to proceed In
Forma Pauperis (issues on appeal, Dkt. 61) to Magistrate Judge by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(BSN)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 5/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court
NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 57 Order on motion to stay,54 Order on Motion for Reconsideration Order on
motion for recusal by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. Filing fee not paid. (BSN)
DESIGNATION (Directions to the Clerk) of Record on Appeal by Nausheen Zainulabeddin re44 Notice of
appeal(AG)
MOTION to stay documents re48 ,49 ,50 and51 pending appeal by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(BSN)
MOTION for Taxation of Costs with Verified Bill of Costs and Supporting Memorandum of Law by University of
South Florida Board of Trustees.(Mans, Lori) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson.
54 3 pgs order Order on Motion for Reconsideration Order on motion for recusal Wed 1:04 PM
ORDER denying 48 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 50 Motion for Recusal. Signed by Judge James S.
Moody, Jr. on 5/3/2017. (LN)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 6/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court
AFFIDAVIT of Nausheen Zainulabeddin re:48 MOTION for Reconsideration re43 Judgment by Nausheen
Zainulabeddin. (BSN)
MOTION for Stanley R. Apps to withdraw as attorney for the Plaintiff, Nausheen Zainulabeddin, based upon
her election to proceed pro se by Stanley Robert Apps. (Apps, Stanley) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge
Thomas G. Wilson.
TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet,
order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re44 Notice of appeal. (BSN)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 7/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court
NOTICE OF APPEAL as to42 Order on motion for summary judgment by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. Filing fee
not paid. (BSN)
JUDGMENT in favor of University of South Florida Board of Trustees against Nausheen Zainulabeddin (Signed
by Deputy Clerk) (BSN)
42 30+ pgs order Order on motion for summary judgment Wed 4:07 PM
ORDER: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 22) is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to
enter final judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. After entry of final judgment, the Clerk of Court
is directed to close this case and terminate any pending motions as moot. Signed by Judge James S. Moody,
Jr. on 4/19/2017. (AD)
MEMORANDUM in opposition re37 Reply to Response to Motion Plaintiff's Surreply to Defendant's Reply to
Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Nausheen
Zainulabeddin.(Apps, Stanley)
MEDIATION report Hearing held on 3/22/2017. Hearing outcome: IMPASSE. (Shulman, Christopher)
MOTION for leave to file Surreply of no more than 5 pages to Defendant's Reply Memorandum to Plaintiff's
Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. (Apps,
Stanley)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 8/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court
REPLY to Response to Motion re22 MOTION for summary judgment filed by University of South Florida Board
of Trustees. (Mans, Lori)
ORDER granting 35 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney and for Substitution of Counsel. Attorney J. Ray Poole,
Jr., terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson on 3/8/2017. (DMS)
MOTION for J. Ray Poole to withdraw as attorney and for Substitution of Counsel and Supporting
Memorandum of Law by University of South Florida Board of Trustees. (Dickinson, John)
MOTION for leave to file Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment by University of South Florida Board of Trustees. (Poole, J.)
Joint MOTION to extend time to conduct Mediation until March 22, 2017 by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. (Apps,
Stanley)
NOTICE by Nausheen Zainulabeddin re27 Response in Opposition to Motion,23 Notice (Other) Notice of Filing
COMPLETE Deposition Transcript of Dr. Ambuj Kumar, M.D., including Exhibit omitted by Defendant(Apps,
Stanley)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 9/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court
NOTICE by Nausheen Zainulabeddin re27 Response in Opposition to Motion Notice of Filing Deposition
Transcript of Dr. Steven Specter, Ph.D.(Apps, Stanley)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 10/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court
NOTICE by Nausheen Zainulabeddin re27 Response in Opposition to Motion Notice of Filing Affidavit of the
Plaintiff in support of Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Summary Judgment(Apps, Stanley)
RESPONSE in Opposition re22 MOTION for summary judgment with supporting Memorandum of Law filed by
Nausheen Zainulabeddin. (Apps, Stanley)
STATEMENT of undisputed facts re:22 MOTION for summary judgment Statement of DISPUTED MATERIAL
FACTS, precluding entry of summary judgment by Nausheen Zainulabeddin..(Apps, Stanley)
NOTICE of withdrawal of motion by Nausheen Zainulabeddin re19 MOTION to Take Deposition from Dr.
Joanne Valeriano-Marcet Subsequent to Close of Discovery, with Incorporated Statement of Good Cause
Wherefore filed by Nausheen Zainulabeddin (Apps, Stanley)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 11/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court
NOTICE by University of South Florida Board of Trustees re22 MOTION for summary judgment (Poole, J.)
Att: 3 87 pgs Exhibit Deposition of Dr. Deborah Roth and Exhibits Thereto,
Att: 4 87 pgs Exhibit Deposition of Dr. Ambuj Kumar and Exhibits Thereto,
MOTION for summary judgment by University of South Florida Board of Trustees. (Poole, J.)
Joint MOTION to extend time to Complete Mediation by University of South Florida Board of Trustees. (Poole,
J.)
ORDER granting 19 Motion to Take Deposition of Dr. Joanne Valeriano-Marcet on February 3, 2017. See Order
for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson on 2/2/2017. (DMS)
MOTION to Take Deposition from Dr. Joanne Valeriano-Marcet Subsequent to Close of Discovery, with
Incorporated Statement of Good Cause Wherefore by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(Apps, Stanley)
ORDER appointing Christopher M. Shulman as mediator in this action. Mediation Conference set for
FEBRUARY 10, 2017. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 12/13/2016. (LN)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 12/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court
16 order Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Wed 9:53 AM
ENDORSED ORDER granting 15 the Parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery.
Discovery shall be completed by February 1, 2017. Dispositive Motions are now due February 4, 2017. All
other dates in the Case Management Order remain unchanged. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on
11/30/2016. (RWL)
Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by University of South Florida Board of Trustees.
(Poole, J.)
ORDER referring case to mediation and directing selection of a mediator on or before 12/9/2016. Mediation
shall be conducted on or before 3/1/2017. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 11/9/2016. (LN)
Unopposed MOTION for Gibbs to withdraw as attorney by University of South Florida Board of Trustees.
(Poole, J.)
ANSWER and affirmative defenses to Complaint by University of South Florida Board of Trustees.(Gibbs, John)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 13/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court
ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and For More Definite Statement 4 is DENIED. Defendant shall file an
answer within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 4/13/2016.
(LN)
CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 1/3/2017, Dispositive motions due by
2/1/2017, Pretrial Conference set for TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2017 at 9:15 AM in Tampa Courtroom 17 before Judge
James S. Moody Jr., Jury Trial set for JUNE 2017 trial term in Tampa Courtroom 17 before Judge James S.
Moody Jr. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 4/6/2016. (AR)
RESPONSE in Opposition re4 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and For More Definite Statement and
Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(Apps, Stanley)
MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and For More Definite Statement and Supporting Memorandum of
Law by University of South Florida Board of Trustees. (Gibbs, John)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 14/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court
Att: 1 Exhibit
NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, case number 16-CA-
000669 filed in State Court on 1/22/16. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number tpa 035597 filed by University of
South Florida Board of Trustees.(BSN)
Showing All
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 15/15
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 10 of 61 PageID 1016
A-820
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 11 of 61 PageID 1017
A-821
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 12 of 61 PageID 1018
A-822
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 13 of 61 PageID 1019
A-823
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 14 of 61 PageID 1020
A-824
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 15 of 61 PageID 1021
A-825
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 16 of 61 PageID 1022
A-826
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 17 of 61 PageID 1023
A-827
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 18 of 61 PageID 1024
A-828
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 19 of 61 PageID 1025
A-829
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 20 of 61 PageID 1026
A-830
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 21 of 61 PageID 1027
A-831
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 22 of 61 PageID 1028
A-832
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 23 of 61 PageID 1029
A-833
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 24 of 61 PageID 1030
A-834
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 25 of 61 PageID 1031
A-835
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 26 of 61 PageID 1032
A-836
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 27 of 61 PageID 1033
A-837
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 28 of 61 PageID 1034
A-838
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 29 of 61 PageID 1035
A-839
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 30 of 61 PageID 1036
A-840
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 31 of 61 PageID 1037
A-841
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 32 of 61 PageID 1038
A-842
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 33 of 61 PageID 1039
A-843
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 34 of 61 PageID 1040
A-844
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 35 of 61 PageID 1041
A-845
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 36 of 61 PageID 1042
A-846
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 37 of 61 PageID 1043
A-847
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 38 of 61 PageID 1044
A-848
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 39 of 61 PageID 1045
A-849
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 40 of 61 PageID 1046
A-850
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 41 of 61 PageID 1047
A-851
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 42 of 61 PageID 1048
A-852
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 43 of 61 PageID 1049
A-853
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 44 of 61 PageID 1050
A-854
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 45 of 61 PageID 1051
A-855
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 46 of 61 PageID 1052
A-856
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 47 of 61 PageID 1053
A-857
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 48 of 61 PageID 1054
A-858
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 49 of 61 PageID 1055
A-859
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 50 of 61 PageID 1056
A-860
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 51 of 61 PageID 1057
A-861
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 52 of 61 PageID 1058
A-862
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 53 of 61 PageID 1059
A-863
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 54 of 61 PageID 1060
A-864
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 55 of 61 PageID 1061
A-865
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 56 of 61 PageID 1062
A-866
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 57 of 61 PageID 1063
A-867
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 58 of 61 PageID 1064
A-868
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 59 of 61 PageID 1065
A-869
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 60 of 61 PageID 1066
A-870
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 61 of 61 PageID 1067
A-871
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 25 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1068
A-872
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN,
Plaintiff,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO TAKE DEPOSITION
OF DR. JOANNE VALERIANO-MERCET
2017. The parties have resolved this discovery dispute and no further action by
! 1!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 25 Filed 02/09/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1069
A-873
Respectfully submitted on this 9th day of February, 2017.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
! 2!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID 1070
A-874
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN,
Plaintiff,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
! 1!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 12 PageID 1071
A-875
Plaintiff alleges: Zainulabeddin believes she was readmitted based on the
error made by Dr. Steven Specter (“Specter” or “Dr. Specter”), who told
Neuropsychological Evaluation.
! 2!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 12 PageID 1072
A-876
the Neuropsychological Evaluation constituted “new information” that
was provided to the APRC for the first time on or about February 16,
Evaluation was provided to the APRC by Dr. Specter. Id. Notably this
135-7.
! 3!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 12 PageID 1073
A-877
outside evaluator, allegedly reviewed by the APRC in February 2012, for
outside expert until March 2014, when she was evaluated by Dr. Stefanie
not submit any such document in support of her appeal of her dismissal.
Id.
! 4!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 12 PageID 1074
A-878
Why this factual issue is material: USF’s reasons for readmitting
Evaluation, admitted his error and claimed he would arrange for her to
! 5!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 12 PageID 1075
A-879
First, Zainulabeddin earned a passing grade in Evidence Based
Clinical Reasoning II (“EBCR II”), one of the two courses she is alleged
by USF to have failed in March 2013, based on her average in that course
and her grade on the final examination. See Zainulabeddin Aff. at 21-23.
examination in EBCR II (which was allegedly the reason for her failure
examination was “Unknown” and that her official percentile score on the
Exhibit B, at 2-3.
practice at the USF medical school of assigning the grade of “U” for
! 6!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 7 of 12 PageID 1076
A-880
but this testimony was contradicted by the testimony of another course
131-32.
Fifth, Dr. Kumar told Zainulabeddin that her final grade in EBCR
Zainulabeddin, who also failed one or both of the two courses she
Zainulabeddin was singled out to receive a “U” grade that could not be
! 7!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 8 of 12 PageID 1077
A-881
corrected by remediation. Stock Depo. at 96 and Ex. 15. Thereafter,
fourteen peers who were assigned “T” grades in EBCR II and her thirty-
five peers who were assigned “T” grades in Doctoring II, her grades
remediation and she would not have been dismissed from Medical
School.
together with the lost test grade and the disparate treatment of so many
from Medical School in March 2014. Instead the evidence shows that she
was singled out for less favorable treatment than her colleagues, based
on vague allegations that she had a “global deficiency” and that she was
assigned a failing grade in one class, EBCR II, that she believes she
passed, based on a final examination grade that was never recorded and
! 8!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 9 of 12 PageID 1078
A-882
Why this factual issue is material: If USF did not follow its normal
Kumar spoke truthfully when he claimed that USF’s Medical School has
of Dr. Stock. Lastly, the finder of fact should be allowed to consider the
when she was assigned two “U” grades, even though fourteen other
students who failed EBCR II and thirty-five other students who failed
! 9!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 10 of 12 PageID 1079
A-883
the 2011-12 academic year, contradicting the assertion of Dr. Saundra
Zainulabeddin may have been altered after the fact to produce a record
contends that she did not receive any such notice, and instead believed
assessment.
! 10!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 11 of 12 PageID 1080
A-884
Furthermore, USF may have committed discovery violations by
This evidence also calls into question the credibility of Dr. Stock
Medical School was extraordinary and unwarranted, and was not based
disability accommodations, and that the stated reasons for her dismissal
! 11!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 12 of 12 PageID 1081
A-885
Respectfully submitted on this 19th day of February, 2017.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
! 12!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1082
A-886
Exhibit A
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 8 PageID 1083
A-887
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 8 PageID 1084
A-888
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 8 PageID 1085
A-889
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 8 PageID 1086
A-890
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 8 PageID 1087
A-891
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 7 of 8 PageID 1088
A-892
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 8 of 8 PageID 1089
A-893
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1090
A-894
Exhibit B
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID 1091
A-895
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID 1092
A-896
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID 1093
A-897
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID 1094
A-898
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1095
A-899
Exhibit C
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 9 PageID 1096
A-900
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 9 PageID 1097
A-901
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 9 PageID 1098
A-902
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 9 PageID 1099
A-903
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 9 PageID 1100
A-904
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 7 of 9 PageID 1101
A-905
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 8 of 9 PageID 1102
A-906
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 9 of 9 PageID 1103
A-907
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1104
A-908
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN,
Plaintiff,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff,
hereby files her Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
I. OVERVIEW
Summary Judgment on all six counts of Zainulabeddin’s Complaint, which are: I. Breach
of Fiduciary Duties by and through USF’s agent, Dean of Student Affairs Dr. Steven
through USF’s agent, Dr. Specter; III. Breach of Contract; IV. Unjust Enrichment; V.
Disability Discrimination; and VI. Retaliation for the protected activity of requesting
accommodation of disability.
! 1!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 20 PageID 1105
A-909
II. CONCESSION
Having had the benefits of Discovery in this matter, Zainulabeddin concedes that
her breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims, based on sovereign immunity. In
other words, Zainulabeddin concedes that USF’s failure to honor its representations,
while it would be legally actionable if a private university engaged in the same conduct,
does not give rise to an actionable claim when Defendant USF engages in the same
See Motion at 3-7. USF’s account of the facts is artfully drafted to elide the many factual
disputes that give rise to this civil action. Most notably, it makes no reference to the
30(b)(6) deposition testimony of Dr. Specter, the agent and employee of USF whose
! 2!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 20 PageID 1106
A-910
However, Dr. Specter’s testimony is materially important, because he repeatedly
counsel, Mr. Ray Poole, Esq., that Specter will serve as USF’s Corporate Designee in
regards to all topics set forth in the 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice); and see Specter Depo.
Ex. 1 (list of 30(b)(6) topics to be addressed by Specter’s testimony); Specter Depo. at 108-
114 (stating that USF’s Answers to Plaintiff’s Third Set of Interrogatories, Nos. 9, 10 and
Plaintiff has produced her own Statement of Disputed Material Facts to address
and explore the genuine issues of material fact, and related questions of credibility, that
Plaintiff’s Statement sets forth the matters stated in Specter’s deposition that are
disputed by Zainulabeddin, as well as her basis for each disputed fact. See Plaintiff’s
Statement at 1-5. Plaintiff’s Statement shows that there is a genuine factual dispute as to
Medical Doctor program (hereinafter “Medical School”) on February 14, 2012. Id. Indeed,
Plaintiff’s Statement shows that there are at least three accounts of why Zainulabeddin
was readmitted to Medical School, two of which were offered by the Defendant, and that
the two accounts offered by Defendant are mutually contradictory. Id. at 2-4.
Pivotally, Plaintiff’s Statement shows that USF willfully and deliberately offered
two mutually contradictory accounts of this material factual issue, one through its
30(b)(6) witness and another through its Answers to Interrogatories. Id. at 4. Specifically,
! 3!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 20 PageID 1107
A-911
USF failed to serve a verified copy of its Objections and Answers to Plaintiff’s Third Set
of Interrogatories, affirmed under penalty of perjury, until January 26, 2017, three days
before the close of Discovery and seven (7) weeks after Dr. Specter was deposed. Id.; and
see Plaintiff’s Statement Ex. A at 2, 7. Thus, USF reaffirmed its Answers to Plaintiff’s
Third Interrogatories, Nos. 9, 10, and 11, seven weeks after its 30(b)(6) witness, Specter,
Medical School in February 2012 was an extraordinary and unusual event, because it
occurred after Zainulabeddin’s appeal of her dismissal had been rejected by the Medical
February 16, 2012). Specifically, Specter admitted that the APRC’s reversal of its earlier
procedure would have been a second appeal to the level of the Dean rather than
reconsideration of the first appeal by the APRC. See Specter Depo. at 41-42; 53-54. And
another Medical School faculty member, Dr. Saundra Stock (“Stock” or “Dr. Stock”)
testified it is unusual that Zainulabeddin had three APRC letters pertaining to the same
dismissal, because typically there would be a dismissal letter followed by a letter either
received a dismissal letter, a letter denying her appeal, and then a third letter reversing
the decision to deny her appeal). See Deposition of Saundra Stock, M.D. (“Stock
Depo.”) at 23-27.
! 4!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 20 PageID 1108
A-912
To summarize, USF has offered two mutually contradictory accounts of a
February 2012—and has admitted that the circumstances of the readmission were “very
unusual” and departed from normal procedures. Notably, one of USF’s accounts, in the
Zainulabeddin’s claims related to this disputed matter of fact, which are her claims for
Zainulabeddin should have the opportunity to testify that she was readmitted to Medical
School in February 2012 based on the error made by Dr. Specter, who told her on or
about February 8, 2012 that he had given her incorrect information about the results of
Zainulabeddin recalls that Specter told her he would correct his mistake by arranging a
meeting with the Medical School’s Academic Performance Review Committee, and that
he believed the APRC would reverse Zainulabeddin’s dismissal from Medical School
based on the new information about Zainulabeddin’s disability status contained in the
giving the finder of fact an opportunity to consider the question of Dr. Specter’s
credibility, especially given that Specter’s account of events relies on the alleged
! 5!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 20 PageID 1109
A-913
existence of a document (an independent Neurological Evaluation by an outside
evaluator) that did not exist. See Plaintiff’s Statement at 4-5; Zainulabeddin Aff. at 15-17.
Plaintiff’s Statement also describes numerous other facts placed in dispute by the
at 5-11. These other factual disputes call into question the credibility of two more of
Defendant’s witnesses. One of these witnesses, Dr. Ambuj Kumar, claims it was a
normal practice of the Medical School to assign final grades based on students’ alleged
Kumar, M.D. (“Kumar Depo.”) at 48-59; but compare with Stock Depo. at 131-32 (stating
that student’s grades in other courses would not be allowed to influence assignment of
grades). Another key witness, Dr. Saundra Stock, appears to admit that a midterm
In addition, Zainulabeddin presents evidence that she did not actually fail one of
the two courses she is alleged to have failed in March 2013. Zainulabeddin Aff. at 21-23;
Taken as a whole, these factual disputes, and the questions of witness credibility
that arise from them, require resolution by the finder of fact. See Plaintiffs’ Statement
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court should only grant summary judgment “if the movant shows there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The Court should “view
! 6!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 7 of 20 PageID 1110
A-914
the evidence and all factual inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-
moving party, and resolve all reasonable doubts about the facts in favor of the non-
movant.” Carter v. City of Melbourne, Fla., 731 F.3d 1161, 1166 (11th Cir. 2013). “Credibility
determinations” should be left to the finder of fact, and evidence presented by the non-
movant should be believed. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
Evidence presented by the movant is entitled to credence only to the extent that it is
“uncontradicted and unimpeached, at least to the extent that that evidence comes from
disinterested witnesses.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 151
(analyzing the standard of review for summary judgment under Rule 56 and for
judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50, which is the same standard), citing 9A C.
Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2529, p. 300 (2d ed. 1995).
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court should review the entire
record but should entirely disregard “all evidence favorable to the moving party that the
jury is not required to believe.” Reeves, 530 U.S. at 151. Where the non-movant
introduces evidence that materially contradicts evidence offered by the movant, the
Court should believe the non-movant’s evidence and may not find that the movant’s
the evidence for the jury’s.” Id. at 152-53. The Court’s function in reviewing a summary
judgment motion is “not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the
matter, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S.
at 249. There is a genuine issue for trial when “there is sufficient evidence for a jury to
! 7!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 8 of 20 PageID 1111
A-915
Once a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discrimination, summary
intent is “totally lacking”. Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Pub. Co., 9 F.3d 913, 921 (11th Cir.
1993), citing Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981). On
the issue of pretext, “plaintiff’s burden at the summary judgment stage is met by
introducing evidence that could form the basis for a finding of facts, which when taken
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, could allow a jury to find by the
preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff has established pretext.” Id.
B. EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Count I and Count II are facially barred by the
Zainulabeddin does not dispute this, but argues that USF is equitably estopped
from asserting the statute of limitations defense, based on USF’s affirmative misconduct,
arranged for her readmission to Medical School, causing her to forego bringing suit
advocate as to her second dismissal, but betrayed her trust when he failed to make the
arguments she expected him to make and instead used his appearance as her advocate as
an opportunity to conceal his past misdeeds. Id. at 13-14. Most recently, Specter has
repeatedly to a document that does not exist. Id. at 14-16; Plaintiff’s Statement at 3-5.
! 8!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 9 of 20 PageID 1112
A-916
And the discovery process has brought to light arguably fraudulent conduct by other
estoppel “is not concerned with the running and suspension of the limitations period,
but rather comes into play only after the limitations period has run and addresses itself
to the circumstances in which a party will be estopped from asserting the statute of
induced another into forbearing suit within the applicable limitations period. Its
application is wholly independent of the limitations period itself and takes its life, not
from the language of the statute, but from the equitable principle that no man will be
permitted to profit from his own wrongdoing in a court of justice. Thus . . . equitable
estoppel operates directly on the defendant without abrogating the running of the
limitations period.” Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So.2d 1071, 1078 (Fla. 2001),
quoting and approving Bomba v. W.L. Belvidere, Inc., 579 F.2d 1067, 1070 (7th Cir.1978).
In Florida Dep’t of Health and Human Services v. S. A. P., 835 So. 2d 1091, 1099-
1100 (Fla. 2002), the Florida Supreme Court found that equitable estoppel operated to
prevent a Florida state agency, the Department of Health Rehabilitative Services, from
asserting the statute of limitations in its own defense, based on allegations that the
claims, and falsified government records to conceal its own wrongdoing. Plaintiff
proposes to show that an equivalent level of governmental misconduct has taken place in
! 9!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 10 of 20 PageID 1113
A-917
1. what appears to be false testimony by USF’s 30(b)(6) corporate designee, who claims
document that did not exist. See Specter Depo. at 37-38; 54-55; 97-101; 135-37; and see
deposition. Compare Stock Depo. at 89 (claiming she never assigned a “T” grade in
Doctoring II) with Stock Depo. at 94-96 (admitting she gave as many as 35 “T” grades
4. abuse by Dr. Specter of his advocate role in relation to Zainulabeddin’s Petition for
recent, including misconduct after she filed her suit such as false testimony at recent
creates a reasonable inference that the concealment has been underway since the
was unable to obtain evidence of USF’s deliberate concealment until the tools of judicial
Zainulabeddin’s disability documentation, then he has been lying about it since the time
of her second dismissal from Medical School in March 2013, if not before. And it appears
! 10!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 11 of 20 PageID 1114
A-918
that Stock has concealed facts about Zainulabeddin’s academic record since December
Zainulabeddin prays this honorable Court to find she has made a sufficient
accordingly to allow her state tort claims to go forward to the jury in this case.
that colleges, universities and their employees do not, as a general matter, owe fiduciary
duties to their students. Motion at 11- 14. Zainulabeddin agrees, but considers that USF,
evaluation; 3) selecting the professional who would perform said evaluation; and 4)
It is settled law in Florida that an implied fiduciary relationship will exist when
there is “a degree of dependency on one side” combined with “an undertaking on the
other side to protect and/or benefit the dependent party.” Masztal v. City of Miami, 971
So.2d 803, 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), citing Maxwell v. First United Bank, 782 So.2d 931,
933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The Florida Supreme Court has found that an implied fiduciary
one side and the resulting superiority and influence on the other. . . . The rule embraces
both technical fiduciary relations and those informal relations which exist whenever one
! 11!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 12 of 20 PageID 1115
A-919
man trusts in and relies upon another.” Quinn v. Phipps, 93 Fla. 805, 113 So. 419, 421
(1927); and see Doe v. Evans, 814 So. 2d 370, 374 (Fla. 2002), citing and affirming Quinn
as good law. Fiduciary relationships implied by law are “premised upon the specific
factual situation surrounding the transaction and the relationship of the parties.” Evans,
814 So.2d at 374, citing Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So.2d 515, 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
vital importance to her ability to complete medical school and achieve her career goals,
and by controlling the provision of that service in a manner that created dependency in
Zainulabeddin and caused her to repose her confidence in Specter. USF’s conduct
with her to the extent Specter believed necessary and appropriate. Specter reinforced
Zainulabeddin, presenting himself as a benefactor and expert who would provide the
374, 387 (To establish implied fiduciary relationship, party must allege a degree of
dependency on one side and some degree of undertaking on the other side to advise,
counsel and protect the weaker party). Any reasonable finder of fact must agree that
Zainulabeddin was the weaker, dependent party in this context and that USF, by and
through Specter, voluntarily undertook to advise, counsel and protect her in relation to
Neuropsychological Evaluation. See, e.g. Specter Depo. at 28-29 (Specter met with
! 12!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 13 of 20 PageID 1116
A-920
Zainulabeddin to explain that USF would be providing her with “an assessment of her
learning style to try and understand if she had any learning deficiencies and how she
sovereign immunity. See Motion at 14-15. This argument is incorrect and is based on
misrepresentations to the public in general, which is the issue at stake in the various
cases cited by USF. USF relies on Storm v. the Town of Ponce Inlet, 866 So. 2d 713, 715
(Fla. 5th DCA 2004), and cases cited therein. These cases collectively stand for the
proposition that “the government owes no duty to individual members of the public for
giving out accurate information or properly enforcing building codes.” Storm at 715.
undertakes to provide a person a valuable service and then to inform said person about
the results of the service provided. Instead, the cases cited by USF relate to situations
where a plaintiff attempts to hold a government agent or employee liable for failure to
County v. Morris, 730 So. 2d 367, 368 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1999) (county not liable for
concerning location of water mains); Freidberg v. Town of Longboat Key, 504 So. 2d 52,
53 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1987) (private citizens have no right of recovery against municipalities
! 13!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 14 of 20 PageID 1117
A-921
The correct analysis of sovereign immunity in relationship to Zainulabeddin’s
Supreme Court in Kaisner v. Kolb, 543 So. 2d 732, 733-38 (Fla. 1989). Under Kaisner, the
first step of the analysis is to consider whether “a common law or statutory duty of care
existed that would have been applicable to an individual under similar circumstances.”
Id. at 734. If the court finds that a government agency or employee would have owed a
common law or statutory duty of care to the plaintiff in the particular circumstances,
only then does the question of governmental immunity arise. Id. at 736. And see Storm,
866 So. 2d at 715-16 (interpreting Kaisner and citing cases employing Kaisner’s two-step
approach).
misrepresentation claim succeeds at the first step of the Kaisner analysis. As in Kaisner,
Zainulabeddin was restrained in her liberty by the actions of the APRC, acting by and
through Specter. See Kaisner at 734. Specifically, she was required as a condition of
professional chosen by Specter, and her personal medical information was then placed
in Specter’s custody such that Zainulabeddin had to seek access to the information
through Specter. In this circumstance, Zainulabeddin was placed in the foreseeable zone
which had been delegated to Specter. See Storm, 866 So. 2d at 717 (“liability arises when
an employer has a legal duty arising out of the relationship between the employment in
question and the particular plaintiff, which is owed to the plaintiff if he or she is in the
zone of foreseeable risks created by the employment.”) A duty of care arose when USF,
! 14!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 15 of 20 PageID 1118
A-922
by and through Specter, generated information about Zainulabeddin’s disability status
and then undertook to counsel and guide Zainulabeddin based on the information it had
negligently and thereby violated the trust created when USF required her to participate
Doctor program.
It is undisputed that Dr. Specter was acting as an agent of the Medical School in
really came from the APRC, so I was the conduit, but not the referring individual. . . .
[I]t’s important to note that I did not make the decision that she needed this.”) Specter
was continuing to act as the “conduit” for the administration of USF’s Medical School
evaluation with her, so his negligent misrepresentations to her were within the scope of
The second step of the Kaisner analysis assesses whether “actions which give rise
matters”. Storm, 866 So. 2d at 718. To consider this, Florida courts apply a four point
test:
! 15!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 16 of 20 PageID 1119
A-923
requisite constitutional, statutory, or lawful authority and duty to do or
make the challenged act, omission, or decision? If these preliminary
questions can be clearly and unequivocally answered in the affirmative,
then the challenged act, omission or decision can, with a reasonable
degree of assurance, be classified as a discretionary governmental process
and nontortious, regardless of its unwisdom.
Storm, 866 S0. 2d at 718, citing Commercial Carrier and Avalone v. Board
of County Commissioners, 493 So. 2d 1002, 1005 (Fla. 1986)
Here, the challenged conduct clearly falls on the operational side of the
and is not essential to the realization of any governmental policy or objective. It also
does not involve the exercise of basic policy evaluation, judgment and expertise on the
part of USF. Lastly, USF does not possess a lawful authority or duty to require students
all four preliminary questions can be clearly and unequivocally answered in the negative,
the challenged conduct of USF must be recognized as an act that is operational rather
than discretionary in nature. Kaisner, 543 So. 2d 732, 736-37 (“An operational function . .
USF and Specter’s conduct toward Zainulabeddin was operational in character, it does
not involve a type of discretion that must be insulated from suit, and sovereign immunity
! 16!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 17 of 20 PageID 1120
A-924
Defendant asserts that Zainulabeddin is not an “otherwise qualified individual”
for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act. See Motion at 19-20. But this is an argument
better suited for trial, because it relies on Defendant’s view of contested facts.
construes numerous contested material facts in the manner most favorable to Defendant,
which is not a proper basis for summary judgment. See Carter, 731 F.3d 1161, 1166 (11th
Cir. 2013) (in reviewing motion for summary judgment, the Court should “view the
evidence and all factual inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-
moving party, and resolve all reasonable doubts about the facts in favor of the non-
movant”). Specifically, Defendant asks the Court to find that Zainulabeddin was
dismissed from Medical School based solely on her academic problems, and to find that
Zainulabeddin could not have succeeded in the remaining years of Medical School
unless Defendant lowered its academic standards. Defendant further asks the Court to
judge Zainulabeddin to be a person that is fundamentally “not able to meet the academic
School. See J.A.M. v. Nova Se. Univ., Inc., 646 F. App’x 921, 926-27 (11th Cir. 2016)
(defining a person who is not an “otherwise qualified individual” for purposes of the
Rehabilitation Act as lacking the capacity to meet the academic or technical standards
The Court cannot make such broad factual findings at this stage without
[the Court’s] judgment concerning the weight of the evidence for the jury’s.” Reeves, 530
U.S. at 151-53.
! 17!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 18 of 20 PageID 1121
A-925
Notably, Zainulabeddin asserts that based on her performance she should have
passed one of the two courses she is alleged to have failed in March 2013. See
Zainulabeddin Aff. at 21-23. She also provides extensive evidence that could support a
finding that discriminatory animus was the but for cause of her dismissal from the
Medical School in March 2013. Id. at 13-26; and see Plaintiff’s Statement at 5-11. There is
too much evidence of irregular practices and of Zainulabeddin being singled out to fail,
for the Court to make a factual finding at this phase that Zainulebeddin “is not able to
USF’s Medical School. Instead the Court must find that, for purposes of the summary
judgment phase, Zainulabeddin has met her burden of showing pretext because she has
“introduc[ed] evidence that could form the basis for a finding of facts, which when taken
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, could allow a jury to find by the
preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff has established pretext.” Hairston, 9
summary judgment is whether the plaintiff’s evidence has placed material facts at issue.”
Id. Zainulabeddin has met this burden, by showing that 14 of her classmates in one
course, and 35 of her classmates in another course, were treated more favorably than
Zainulabeddin through issuance of a correctable “T” grade when they failed, whereas
Zainulabeddin was singled out to fail and issued a non-correctable failing grade of “U”
Zainulabeddin Aff. at 17-26. Based on such evidence, a reasonable trier of fact could find
that she was dismissed from Medical School solely based on discriminatory animus. See
! 18!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 19 of 20 PageID 1122
A-926
Hairston at 921 (reversal of summary judgment required where Plaintiff provided
sufficient factual basis for a reasonable finder of fact to conclude that stated reasons for
protected activity under the Rehabilitaton Act must be quickly rejected. Two days before
CBSE medical licensing test, despite the opposition of Dr. Fraser Stevenson, who at that
time, in the words of Dr. Stock, was “basically in charge of the medical school, helping
to implement the medical school curriculum.” Stock Depo. at 84. Defendant’s assertion
that Stevenson could not have influenced the APRC’s decision to dismiss Zainulabeddin
must also be rejected, since such a highly placed administrator obviously had the ability
to influence the APRC’s members, virtually all of whom were his subordinates. Nor is it
true that Zainulabeddin’s retaliation claim is leveled solely against Dr. Stevenson, as
Defendant asserts. See Motion at 23. On the contrary, Dr. Specter also had strong
motives to retaliate against Zainulabeddin, to conceal his earlier mistake related to her
APRC who attended all APRC meetings, was well-positioned to influence the APRC’s
decision-making as to Zainulabeddin.
Furthermore, Zainulabeddin will testify that Dr. Kumar told her that Dr.
Stevenson or Dr. Specter would determine her final grade in EBCR II. Zainulabeddin
! 19!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 20 of 20 PageID 1123
A-927
Aff. at 21-23. This information, combined with the fact that Kumar and USF have
sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Zainulabeddin did not actually fail
EBCR II and instead was dismissed from Medical School at the direction of Stevenson
“partially barred” by the statute of limitations has no relevance to this case. See Motion
at 24. Zainulabeddin’s Rehabilitation Act claims relate only to her dismissal in March of
3013, and do not pertain to any event that occurred prior to January 22, 2012 (except to
the limited extent that such past events might be relevant factual background).
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
! 20!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1124
A-928
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN,
Plaintiff,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
[Dkt. 27].
A-929
Respectfully submitted on this 19th day of February, 2017.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A-930
AFFIDAVIT OF NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN
affirm as follows:
TGW.
“USF Medical School”) from August 10, 2009 until May 28, 2013. I
3. As the transcript shows, I attended the Medical School for four (4)
! 1!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 27 PageID 1127
A-931
5. As Exhibit B demonstrates, I was dismissed for the first time on
through its agent the Dean of Student Affairs, Dr. Steven Specter
Examination;
! 2!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 27 PageID 1128
A-932
d. Dr. Specter’s admission of his error and reassurance that he
February 2012;
on December 8, 2016.
! 3!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 27 PageID 1129
A-933
misconduct, including perjury, intended to mislead and to cause
! 4!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 27 PageID 1130
A-934
(stating that it was a practice of USF to provide neuropsycholgical
13. While I did not know this at the time, I now know that it is not a
! 5!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 27 PageID 1131
A-935
December 17, 2010. See Neuropsychological Evaluation of
note that the first page of this Exhibit has been lost, while in the
custody of Defendant.)
Specter and was not provided to me. Rather than being allowed to
review the report directly, I was asked to meet with Dr. Specter so
17. Because I had not hired Dr. Schoenberg to evaluate me, and had
not been the person paying him for his work, I believed the
Exhibit E, at 1.
! 6!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 7 of 27 PageID 1132
A-936
19. Even though Dr. Specter is not a physician, he purported to
worry about and you should continue studying hard and doing
well.”
! 7!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 8 of 27 PageID 1133
A-937
23. In fact, Schoenberg’s report indicated that I would qualify for
attention difficulties).
assured me that nothing came out of my report and that I did not
201o and January 2012. During this period, I believed that I did not
! 8!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 9 of 27 PageID 1134
A-938
attention difficulties were caused by challenging life
circumstances.
26. I was dismissed from the Medical School for the first time on
January 5, 2012.
Appeal Letter in January 2012, I believed that I did not suffer from
! 9!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 10 of 27 PageID 1135
A-939
31. On February 6, 2012 I obtained and reviewed a copy of the
report.
33. At this meeting, Dr. Specter told me that there had been a mix-up
35. USF has admitted that I was readmitted to the Medical School on
Specter to the APRC for the first time on February 16, 2012. See
! 10!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 11 of 27 PageID 1136
A-940
Defendant’s Objections and Answers to Plaintiff’s Third Set of
was known to the APRC prior to February 16, 2012. See Specter
testimony.
! 11!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 12 of 27 PageID 1137
A-941
professor Dr. Saundra Stock, who is a psychiatrist, that “it has
39. At trial, I intend to offer evidence that the Medical School agreed
40. I will argue that Specter’s error, and his later attempts to conceal
misrepresentation by Specter.
41. The readmission by USF on February 16, 2012 had the effect of
! 12!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 13 of 27 PageID 1138
A-942
while I was a student there would interfere with my continuing
about February 1o, 2012, after the conversation with Specter when
me that he would explain his error to the APRC and that the
44. After my second dismissal from USF Medical School on March 14,
! 13!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 14 of 27 PageID 1139
A-943
earlier mistake to the APRC so that they would be able to
as a medical student.
before the APRC, did not explain his earlier mistake to them and
better for his career to see me dismissed from the Medical School
than to admit to his earlier error and the set backs to my Medical
process.
suit ended by the date of my final dismissal from the USF Medical
! 14!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 15 of 27 PageID 1140
A-944
activity by Specter and/or USF. Id. at 10. These arguments are
without merit.
2016.
information that caused [her] appeal [of her dismissal from the
! 15!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 16 of 27 PageID 1141
A-945
evaluation of Zainulabeddin, dated 2012 or earlier, that led to
done so, because at that time I did not believe I had ADHD and
! 16!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 17 of 27 PageID 1142
A-946
at least referred to it in my Letter of Appeal.
! 17!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 18 of 27 PageID 1143
A-947
and the Medical School now states that my grade on that quiz is
Exhibit J, at 2-3;
course director;
! 18!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 19 of 27 PageID 1144
A-948
he had been told by other course directors or by Dr. Specter or
that course received the grade “S” for “Satisfactory” and that she
of “T” that they were later able to correct into an “S.” See Stock
Depo. at 69-71; and see id. at 89 (“I don’t think we ever did use a T
58. This evidence shows that I was singled out to receive the non-
! 19!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 20 of 27 PageID 1145
A-949
School administrators had decided to dismiss me from the
favorably simply because no one had told him that they had a
! 20!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 21 of 27 PageID 1146
A-950
Failure to Record My Final Quiz Grade in EBCR II
the final Evidence Based Medicine quiz is “an objective test” and
or a U in the course.)
63. However, USF has admitted that Dr. Kumar failed to record my
grade on the exam and that the official percentile score on the
inference that Dr. Kumar did not determine my final grade in the
65. When I went to his office to discuss my final quiz grade, Dr.
66. Dr. Kumar’s grade sheet for ECBR II, while it does not list my
final quiz grade, does show that seven other students received a
! 21!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 22 of 27 PageID 1147
A-951
final quiz grade of 67.5%. Every student who received that quiz
K.
67. Each of the seven students who passed with a final quiz grade of
68. What this shows is that other students with the same grades I had
grades that should have been sufficient to pass, I was singled out
69. When I asked Dr. Kumar to tell me whether I had passed EBCR
and Dr. Specter and indicated that the APRC would determine
my final grade in EBCR II. See Kumar Depo. at 48-49 and Ex. 15.
bigger things to worry, go and meet these people and find out
! 22!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 23 of 27 PageID 1148
A-952
71. Nonetheless, the evidence as a whole supports an inference that
course.
they were assigned the correctable grade of “T” and had the
! 23!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 24 of 27 PageID 1149
A-953
Temporal Proximity of Protected Activity
74. On March 12, 2013, I rejected Dr. Stevenson’s advice to take the
75. I believe Dr. Stevenson and Dr. Specter were angry that I rejected
examination.
76. They had the opportunity to retaliate against me two days later, by
! 24!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 25 of 27 PageID 1150
A-954
alleged “global deficiency” based on performance in other
78. Notably, Dr. Kumar claimed that there is a general policy of the
person and ask them, hey, here I have a student who, you know,
failed that exam, did not score satisfactory. Could you check me
what else is going on? And they say, oh, it’s good. Looks like no
failing elsewhere. This is a one off thing. All right. That is T. Oh,
boy, this guy has already failed four, so it goes U, so that’s how it
is.”)
II. Id. at 132. Stock’s testimony on this important issue calls Dr.
! 25!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 26 of 27 PageID 1151
A-955
80. Based on the evidence set forth herein, there are numerous
correctable “T” grades in EBCR II, then I also would not have
been dismissed.
! 26!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 27 of 27 PageID 1152
A-956
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID 1153
A-957
Exhibit A
A-958 Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document
University of South 28-2
Florida, Filed 02/19/17
Morsani
Tampa, Florida
College Page 2 of 16 PageID 1154
of Medicine
Name: Zainulabeddin, Nausheen Degree Sought: MD
ID Number: U55123583 Matriculation Date: 08/10/2009
Issued To: Unofficial - OCR
Academic Year 2009-2010 Academic Year 2012-2013
Course # Course Name Contact Hours Grade Course # Course Name Contact Hours Grade
BMS 5005 Profs of Med:Fndtns-Doctoring 64.5 S BMS 6041 Medical Sciences 5 190.0 S
BMS 6020 Medical Neuroscience 59.0 F BMS 6042 Medical Sciences 6 165.0 S
BMS 6100 Anatomy 161.5 P BMS 6043 Medical Sciences 7 135.0 S
BMS 6206 Molecular Medicine 185.5 PC BMS 6826 Doctoring II 190.0 U
BMS 6500 Physiology 88.5 F BMS 6826R Doctoring II - Remediation 0.0 S
BMS 6825 On Doctoring 45.0 H BMS 6837 Evid-Based Clin Reasoning II 35.0 U
BMS 6830A Physical Diagnosis I 53.5 F BMS 6837R EBCR II-Remediation 0.0 S
BMS 6840 Intro to Behavioral Medicine 50.5 F BMS 6920 Colloquium - Years I & II 11.0 S
BMS 6941A Longitudinal Clin Experience I 84.0 S
Leave of Absence 02/16/12 - 06/22/12
Academic Year 2010-2011 Dismissed from MD Program 05/28/13
Course # Course Name Contact Hours Grade
BMS 6633 Cardiovascular/Pulmonary Syst 176.0 P --End of Transcript--
BMS 6639 Excretory/Reproductive Syst 160.0 P
BMS 6640 Core Prin of Medical Science 156.0 PC
BMS 6641 Communications: Neuro/Endocrin 168.0 PC
BMS 6825 Doctoring I 250.0 S
BMS 6836 Evidence-Based Clin Reasoning 28.0 U
BMS 6836R Evid-Based Clin Reason Remed 0.0 S
Academic Year 2011-2012
Course # Course Name Contact Hours Grade
BMS 6041 Medical Sciences 1 190.0 F
BMS 6042 Medical Sciences 2 165.0 F
BMS 6043 Medical Sciences 3 135.0 W
BMS 6826 Doctoring II 190.0 W
BMS 6837 Evid-Based Clin Reasoning II 35.0 W
BMS 6992G Schol Conc 2-Med and Gender 10.0 WP
--Continued on Next Column--
CPX: Clinical Performance Examination This transcript is not official unless it bears an official signature and the embossed Seal of the Morsani College of Medicine.
CCEE: Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Encounter
06 October 2014
Prior to the 2000-2001 academic year, contact hours were maintained in a legacy system and were
not transferred to the currently used system. Registrar Date Issued
12901 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., Tampa, FL 33612-4799
The highest grade a student remediating a course is eligible to receive is a P.
In accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, information from this transcript may not be
released to a third party without written consent of the student.
Page 1 of 1
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 16 PageID 1155
A-959
Exhibit B
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 16 PageID 1156
Ms. Zainulabeddin was required to repeat both Years I and II because of poor academic performance.
On her first attempt at Year II, she continued to have academic difficulty and was dismissed from the
MD program. When additional information related to testing accommodations became available, the
APRC reviewed its decision to dismiss her and voted to require her to repeat Year II instead.
Upon her repeat of Year II, Ms. Zainulabeddin earned U (Unsatisfactory) grades in Doctoring II and
Evidence Based Clinical reasoning II, and did not meet a level of proficiency in the ICM proficiency.
Because of the academic deficiencies recorded while she was on academic probation and repeating
Year II, the Committee voted to dismiss her from the College of Medicine MD Program. Ms.
Zainulabeddin continued remediation plans while in an appeal status and remediated all three
deficiencies. The APRC’s decision to dismiss her from the MD Program was sustained, however.
"
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 16 PageID 1157
Year: 1
Started: 08/02/2010 Ended: 05/06/2011
Course # Course Title Grade End Date Chg Code
BMS 6640 Core Prin of Medical Science 80 PC 10/08/2010 OE
BMS 6641 Communications: Neuro/Endocrin 84 PC 12/17/2010 OE
BMS 6633 Cardiovascular/Pulmonary Syst 74 P 03/04/2011 OE
BMS 6639 Excretory/Reproductive Syst 79 P 05/06/2011 OE
BMS 6825 Doctoring I S 05/06/2011 OE
BMS 6836 Evidence-Based Clin Reasoning U 05/06/2011 OE "
APRC Review Action Progress
Date Reason
05/12/11 U - EBCR Retake/Pass EBCR exam; Obtain acad advisor from Year 2 faculty/notify Acad Advisor -
Assoc Dean of Stu Aff of choice w/in 30 days/Meet w/ advisor monthly Dr. Don Wheeler Rpts
throughout year until completion of Year 2-advisor must submit a report Rcvd - 10/4/11;
after each mtg; Meet w/ Year 2 course directors prior to beginning Year 2 11/15/11; 8/24/12;
in order to discuss methods for successful acad perf; Remain on ACAD 10/12/12; 12/10/12;
PROBATION; Year 1 reqs must be met before progressing to Year 2; 2/1/13
Further deficiencies will result in addt'l action by APRC
"
Year: 1
Started: 05/09/2011 Ended: 05/20/2011
Course # Course Title Grade End Date Chg Code
BMS 6836R Evid-Based Clin Reason Remed S 05/20/2011 OE "
Year: 2
Started: 07/18/2011 Ended: 02/06/12
Course # Course Title Grade End Date Chg Code
BMS 6041 Medical Sciences 1 F 09/30/2011 OE
BMS 6042 Medical Sciences 2 F 12/16/2011 OE
BMS 6837 Evid-Based Clin Reasoning II S 12/16/2011 OE
BMS 6837 Evid-Based Clin Reasoning II W 12/16/2011 SG
BMS 6992G Schol Conc 2-Med and Gender WP 01/27/2012 OE
BMS 6043 Medical Sciences 3 W 02/24/2012 OE
BMS 6826 Doctoring II W 02/24/2012 OE "
Comments
Leave of Absence 02/16/12 - 06/22/12 "
Year: 2
Started: 07/18/2011 Ended: 02/06/12
Course # Course Title Grade End Date Chg Code
BMS 6041 Medical Sciences 1 F 09/30/2011 OE "
APRC Review Action Progress
Date Reason
10/06/11 F - Medical Sciences I Pending successful completion of remainder of Year 2, remed Med
Sciences I; Adv of record is Dr. Wheeler-continue to meet w/ advisor
monthly until successful completion of Year 2; ACAD WARNING; Year 2
reqs must be met before progressing to Year 3; Further deficiencies will
result in addt'l action by APRC
"
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 16 PageID 1158
Year: 2
Started: 07/18/2011 Ended: 02/06/12
Course # Course Title Grade End Date Chg Code
BMS 6042 Medical Sciences 2 F 12/16/2011 OE
BMS 6837 Evid-Based Clin Reasoning II S 12/16/2011 OE
BMS 6837 Evid-Based Clin Reasoning II W 12/16/2011 SG
BMS 6992G Schol Conc 2-Med and Gender WP 01/27/2012 OE
BMS 6043 Medical Sciences 3 W 02/24/2012 OE
BMS 6826 Doctoring II W 02/24/2012 OE "
"
APRC Review Action Progress
Date Reason
01/05/12 F - Medical Sciences II Dismiss from COM MD Program
02/16/12 Review decision Due to new info which was not available at the previous meeting ,
the APRC voted to overturn its dismissal decision w/ stipulations:
Repeat Year 2 in its entirety w/ class of 2015 beginning 7/23/12; LOA
effective 2/16/12-7/22/12; permitted to audit Year 2 courses during LOA;
Meet w/ Assoc Dean for Stu Aff to discuss this deficiency and mech for
acad improvement; Acad advisor of record is Dr. Wheeler-continue to meet
w/ advisor monthly until successful completion of Year 2-advisor must
submit a report after each mtg; In coordination w/ advisor, Dr. Maher of
USF Counseling Ctr, Mr. Tetrault, acad tutor: create an organized
approach to study for Year 2; Continue enrollment in Kaplan Classroom
Anywhere course to develop successful strategies for (1)
Studying/Developing integrative habits (2) Addressing knowledge base
gaps; Remain on ACAD PROBATION; All Year 2 reqs must be met before
progressing to Year 3; Further deficiencies will result in addt'l action by
APRC
"
Comments
Leave of Absence 02/16/12 - 06/22/12 (Continued from earlier) "
Year: 2
Started: 07/23/2012 Ended: 03/08/2013
Course # Course Title Grade End Date Chg Code
BMS 6041 Medical Sciences 5 S 10/05/2012 OE
BMS 6042 Medical Sciences 6 I 12/21/2012 OE
BMS 6042 Medical Sciences 6 S 12/21/2012 SG
BMS 6920 Colloquium - Years I & II S 01/25/2013 OE
BMS 6043 Medical Sciences 7 S 03/08/2013 OE
BMS 6837 Evid-Based Clin Reasoning II I 12/21/2012 OE
BMS 6837 Evid-Based Clin Reasoning II U 12/21/2012 SG
BMS 6826 Doctoring II U 03/08/2013 OE "
APRC Review Action Progress
Date Reason
03/14/13 U - Doctoring II, EBCR II Dismiss from COM MD Program
ICM Proficiency "
Comments
Began Appeal Process "
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 7 of 16 PageID 1159
Year: 2
Started: 03/11/2013 Ended: 03/08/2013
Course # Course Title Grade End Date Chg Code
BMS 6826R Doctoring II - Remediation S 05/03/2013 OE
BMS 6837R EBCR II-Remediation S 04/03/2013 OE "
Comments
Remediated ICM proficiency 03/15/13 "
APRC Review Action Progress
Date Reason
04/04/13 Appeal Dismissal Sustain original decision
05/03/13 Appeal to Dean Dr. Klasko reviewed the subcommittee report, met with student on 5/21/13,
and confirmed the decision to uphold the dismissal as of 5/28/13
"
Comments
Dismissed from MD Program 05/28/13 "
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 8 of 16 PageID 1160
A-964
Exhibit C
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 9 of 16 PageID 1161
A-965
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 10 of 16 PageID 1162
A-966
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 11 of 16 PageID 1163
A-967
Exhibit D
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 12 of 16 PageID 1164
A-968
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 13 of 16 PageID 1165
A-969
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 14 of 16 PageID 1166
A-970
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 15 of 16 PageID 1167
A-971
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 16 of 16 PageID 1168
A-972
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1169
A-973
Exhibit E
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 8 PageID 1170
A-974
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 8 PageID 1171
A-975
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 8 PageID 1172
A-976
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 8 PageID 1173
A-977
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 8 PageID 1174
A-978
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 7 of 8 PageID 1175
A-979
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 8 of 8 PageID 1176
A-980
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID 1177
A-981
Exhibit F
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 15 PageID 1178
A-982
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 15 PageID 1179
A-983
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 15 PageID 1180
A-984
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 15 PageID 1181
A-985
Exhibit G
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 15 PageID 1182
A-986
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 7 of 15 PageID 1183
A-987
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 8 of 15 PageID 1184
A-988
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 9 of 15 PageID 1185
A-989
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 10 of 15 PageID 1186
A-990
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 11 of 15 PageID 1187
A-991
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 12 of 15 PageID 1188
A-992
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 13 of 15 PageID 1189
A-993
Exhibit H
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 14 of 15 PageID 1190
Thursday,*January*12,*2017*at*10:19:35*PM*Eastern*Standard*Time
Dear-Dr.-Stock,
Thank-you-for-taking-Fme-out-of-your-busy-schedule-to-go-over-strategies-for-success-for-next-year.-Sorry-the-meeFng
lasted-longer-than-expected.-But,-it-was-extremely-helpful.
Nausheen-Zainulabeddin,-MS-II
USF-College-of-Medicine
________________________________________
From:-Zainulabeddin,-Nausheen
Sent:-Wednesday,-February-15,-2012-1:40-PM
To:-Stock,-Saundra
Subject:-RE:
That-works.-Let-me-know-where-in-Silver-Learning-Center-I-should-meet-you.
Thanks!
Nausheen-Zainulabeddin
________________________________________
From:-Stock,-Saundra
Sent:-Wednesday,-February-15,-2012-12:45-PM
To:-Zainulabeddin,-Nausheen
Subject:-RE:
Friday-at-8:30AM-at-silver-child-development-center-\-a]ached-to-psych-building-but-faces-morsani-and-parking
garage.-does-that-work-for-you?
________________________________________
From:-Zainulabeddin,-Nausheen
Sent:-Tuesday,-February-14,-2012-3:10-PM
To:-Stock,-Saundra
Subject:
Dear-Dr.-Stock,
My-name-is-Nausheen-Zainulabeddin.-I-was-a-former-Class-Liaison-for-MSII.-I-am-currently-dismissed-from-USF-COM
undergoing-appeal-process.-It-has-come-to-my-recent-a]enFon-that-I-have-a-confirm-diagnosis-of-my-underlying
ADHD.-I-wanted-your-advice-while-going-through-this-appeal-process.-Are-you-available-anyFme-during-the-week?
Thank-You
Page*1*of*2
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 15 of 15 PageID 1191
Nausheen-Zainulabeddin
A-995
Page*2*of*2
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 24 PageID 1192
A-996
Exhibit I
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 24 PageID 1193
ADDICTIONS COUNSELING
1250 South Tamiami Trail, Suite 201 Sarasota, Florida 34239
Carrie Phelps, LMHC, CAP
941.363.0878 (office) * 941.363.0527 (fax) * www.medpsych.net
Sarasota - Venice - Lakewood Ranch – Bradenton - North Port - Port Charlotte - Tampa
Cook 001214
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 24 PageID 1194
A-998
CURRENT CONCERNS
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Nausheen currently resides alone in Temple Terrace, Florida. She was born in Pakistan and
relocated to the United States when she was two years old. She moved to the Tampa Bay
area when she was 12 years old. She has two siblings (ages 16 and 24) who reside with her
parents. She is currently unemployed and not in school and as a result, she is supported
financially by her parents. In addition, she has never had formal employment but has
volunteered as a tutor.
Nausheen received her B.S. in Biomedical Sciences in 2007 from the University of South
Florida. She had a 3.3 GPA in undergraduate. She began a master’s program in Medical
Sciences in 2007 but was unable to complete that degree due to her failing one class. She
had a 3.7 GPA in her master’s program not including the class that she failed. In addition,
she reported receiving accommodations throughout her master’s program except in the
class she failed. She also was not taking her medication when she failed the class. She took
the MCAT several times over the course of three to four years and finally received an
acceptable score (26) in September 2008. She did not receive accommodations on the
MCAT. She had the most difficulty on the reading portion of the MCAT. She began medical
school in 2009 but failed the 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 academic years. She was able to
repeat the 2009-2010 academic year and performed adequately (although not on
medication and without accommodations) due to already having taken the required
courses. She was dismissed after failing the 2011-2012 academic year, but appealed the
dismissal and was reinstated with accommodations and treatment via medication. She was
again dismissed from medical school in March 2013 due to having incomplete work in
addition to a history of poor academic performance. She appealed the dismissal but was
denied readmission. She indicated that she is currently studying for the Step 1 exam
through Kaplan.
Nausheen is currently in good physical health. She is currently taking Adderall for
treatment of ADHD, which she reported as effective. She was prescribed Concerta when she
Cook 001215
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 24 PageID 1195
A-999
was first diagnosed with ADHD in 2008 but reported it as ineffective. In addition, she was
prescribed Propanol in 2010 due to her psychiatrist believing that she had anxiety.
However, she indicated that the medication was ineffective and caused her to experience
negative side effects. She denied a history of head injury or seizures. She denied any
psychiatric hospitalizations. Her brother has undiagnosed ADHD and learning issues but
receives accommodations in school due to his medical issues.
This evaluation took place during one testing session. Nausheen was appropriately dressed
and groomed, with adequate basic functioning and hygiene. Rapport was mostly easy to
establish. Her conversational proficiency was average for her age. Nausheen was
cooperative throughout testing and appeared to put forth good and consistent effort. She
was persistent on difficult tasks. She appeared to have some difficulty maintaining focus
and would often ask for questions to be repeated. She frequently asked questions about
how respond to particular tasks as she had difficulty following instructions. In addition, she
often asked if the task was timed. No articulation problems were evident. She worked
quickly throughout the evaluation. In addition, she tended to make simple mistakes,
especially on math-related tasks. She did not take her stimulant medication on the day of
testing. Hearing was normal and unaided. Vision was aided with eyeglasses.
Nausheen appeared for the evaluation alert and well oriented (able to state her name,
mother’s name, date of birth, day of week, city, state, and last two Presidents). She did not
evidence symptoms of psychosis, such as hallucinations, delusions, or ideas of reference.
Nausheen denied any compulsions or obsessions. She did not show homicidal or suicidal
tendencies. She provided her personal history, and it seemed reliable. Nausheen was able
to recall a three word list immediately and then five minutes later she recalled two of the
words. She was able to spell the word WORLD forwards and backwards. Nausheen was
able to complete simple math calculations. Her judgment and insight into her difficulties
are poor as she appeared to downplay the severity of her mental health issues. Speech and
thought processes were goal-directed, logical, and coherent. There was no evidence of a
formal thought disorder.
Motivation/Effort
One component of the evaluation is an assessment for appropriate effort and motivation
Cook 001216
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 24 PageID 1196
A-1000
and consistency of motivation during the evaluation. On a comprehensive test of cognitive
effort, Nausheen achieved passing scores on all indices. Results suggested that she
exhibited consistent effort and motivation on cognitive testing, and obtained scores that
accurately estimate her true cognitive capabilities.
Intellectual
On the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV), Nausheen’s overall
intellectual functioning fell within the Low Average range. Her FSIQ was a standard score of
89. However, her GAI, a measure of overall cognitive capability factoring out attentional
issues, was a standard score of 95.1 Her verbal (96) and perceptual reasoning (94) abilities
fell within the Average range, and her working memory (89) and processing speed (81)
abilities fell within the Low Average range. Specifically, her perceptual organization fell
within the Superior range. Her range of factual knowledge, numerical reasoning abilities,
abstract verbal reasoning abilities, and word knowledge fell within the Average range. Her
psychomotor speed and accuracy, visual-motor coordination, visual-spatial coordination,
and immediate auditory memory fell within the Low Average range.
Academic
Nausheen’s academic skills were measured by the Woodcock Johnson – Third Edition:
Tests of Achievement. Her overall academic achievement score fell within the Average
range (102). Her broad written language (101), broad reading (96), broad mathematics
(96), math calculation skills (98), written expression (97), ability to apply academic skills
(97), and academic fluency (90; the speed at which she can complete academic tasks) fell
within the Average range. Specifically, Nausheen’s ability to orally supply the missing word
from a sentence, analyze and solve math problems, spell orally presented words correctly,
perform simple mathematical computations quickly, write sentences according to
directions, read words aloud from a list, write simple sentences quickly, and perform
mathematical computations fell within the Average range. Her ability to read sentences
quickly and respond “yes” or “no” to each correctly fell within the Low Average range. No
significant discrepancies were found among her reading, writing, and math achievement
scores.
Abbreviated Neuropsychological
Overall auditory and visual attention performance on the IVA (a 15-minute long, boring
vigilance task) was below average. Selected subtests of the WRAML-II were administered
and she performed in the Low Average range for both immediate and delayed recall of
auditory memory. She also performed in the Low Average range on the recognition portion
of this task. Graphomotor accuracy and spatial awareness copying a complex geometric
1
This examiner recommends use of Nausheen’s General Ability Index (GAI), as opposed to the Full Scale IQ,
due to her depressed working memory and processing speed abilities. It is recommended practice to derive
the GAI when there are large disparities among the Composite/Index scores.
Cook 001217
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 24 PageID 1197
A-1001
design (the Rey Complex Figure) was average. She performed in the Impaired range for
immediate and delayed recall of visual stimuli. She performed in the Borderline range on
the recognition portion of this task. On a test of persistence, attentiveness, and visual
scanning, her processing speed was in the Average range, with no errors. On a similar but
more complex task requiring greater organizational and planning skills, her score was in
the Average range, again with no sequencing errors. On the Working Memory index of the
WAIS-IV, she performed in the Low Average range for attention and working memory. In
terms of language functioning, her naming abilities were found to be in the Impaired range.
She performed in the Low Average range on a timed test of verbal fluency and reasoning.
SUMMARY
Nausheen is a 29-year-old female who was seen for an evaluation to assess her current
level of functioning and eligibility for vocational rehabilitation services. She was referred
for the evaluation by Rockne Lee from the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation.
During the clinical interview and throughout the formal testing, Nausheen presented as a
cooperative yet anxious individual. Her mental status was within normal limits. Motivation
and effort on cognitive testing appeared consistent as she passed a comprehensive test of
effort and motivation. As a result, results of cognitive testing are deemed as a valid
indicator of her true cognitive functioning.
Nausheen’s overall intellectual ability fell within the Low Average and Average ranges
(FSIQ=89, GAI=95), which is commensurate with previous testing. Her verbal (96) and
perceptual reasoning (94) abilities fell within the Average range, and her working memory
(89) and processing speed (81) abilities fell within the Low Average range. Overall,
intellectual testing revealed relative weaknesses in her working memory and processing
speed abilities. In addition, results of an abbreviated neuropsychological evaluation
evidenced weaknesses in naming abilities, attention, and visual memory. Results of a
previous neuropsychological evaluation indicated a diagnosis of ADHD and results of the
current evaluation were commensurate with that diagnosis. Nausheen reported
longstanding attention-related difficulties and current treatment via medication. As a result
of a review of all available information, Nausheen will be diagnosed with Attention-
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominantly Inattentive Type.
Regarding academic achievement, Nausheen’s overall academic abilities fell within the
Average range (102), which is mostly commensurate with previous testing. Her overall
writing (101), reading (96), and math (96) skills were average. In addition, her academic
fluency (90) was average. Overall, no significant academic issues were reported by
Nausheen and testing was mostly commensurate with her report and intellectual
functioning. As a result, Nausheen will not receive a specific learning-related disorder
diagnosis. Any learning difficulties are felt to be residual to her ADHD and anxiety.
Cook 001218
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 7 of 24 PageID 1198
A-1002
residual to life stressors (i.e., her cousin’s and grandmother’s deaths and her dismissal
from medical school). In addition, she admitted to having suicidal ideation at the time of
her medical school dismissal. A previous evaluation indicated anxiety and depression
symptoms and she was previously treated for these symptoms via medication. Although,
Nausheen denied experiencing current related symptoms, she is felt to have poor insight
into her difficulties and appeared anxious during the evaluation. In addition, psychological
testing was not administered as it was not requested by the Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation. She also may be downplaying the severity of her mental health symptoms
due to cultural factors or her desire to be readmitted into medical school. However, her
anxiety may significantly exacerbate her attention-related difficulties if not properly
treated. As a result of a review of all available information, Nausheen will receive a rule out
for Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified.
DIAGNOSIS:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on test results and interpretations made in this report, the following
recommendations are offered:
1. Due to Nausheen’s ADHD, medical school personnel are encouraged to provide her
with the following accommodations: (a) preferential seating in the front of the
Cook 001219
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 8 of 24 PageID 1199
A-1003
classroom, (b) use of an agenda book, (c) taking exams in a quiet environment (i.e.,
separate room) with few distractions, (d) receiving extra time (50%, time and a
half) on assignments and exams, (e) ability to record class lectures, and (i) receipt
of PowerPoint presentations before class time.
4. Nausheen may benefit from the following books: SOS help for emotions: Managing
anxiety, anger, and depression (2nd Edition) by Lynn Clark, The anxiety and phobia
workbook (5th Edition) by Edmund Bourne, More attention, less deficit: Success
strategies for adults with ADHD by Ari Tuckman, and Taking charge of adult ADHD
by Russell Barkley.
5. Given Nausheen’s elevated levels of anxiety, she would likely benefit from
instruction in some relaxation strategies (e.g., deep breathing, imagery, yoga). In
addition, she should be taught to utilize positive self-statements when encountering
difficulties.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in Nausheen’s care. Please contact me at (941)
363-0878 or by e-mail at drstefanie@medpsych.net should you have any additional
questions or concerns.
Cook 001220
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 9 of 24 PageID 1200
A-1004
SUMMARY OF TEST SCORES
Subtests Scaled
Score
Block Design 7
Similarities 9
Digit Span 6
Matrix Reasoning 14
Vocabulary 9
Arithmetic 10
Symbol Search 7
Visual Puzzles 6
Information 10
Coding 6
Cook 001221
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 10 of 24 PageID 1201
A-1005
Woodcock-Johnson III (Normative Update): Tests of Achievement
CLUSTER / Test Average = 100 + 15
Subtests Scaled
Score
Letter-Word Identification 97
Reading Fluency 88
Calculation 103
Math Fluency 90
Spelling 106
Writing Fluency 96
Passage Comprehension 103
Applied Problems 94
Writing Samples 97
Cook 001222
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 11 of 24 PageID 1202
A-1006
Exhibit J
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 12 of 24 PageID 1203
A-1007
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 13 of 24 PageID 1204
A-1008
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 14 of 24 PageID 1205
A-1009
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 15 of 24 PageID 1206
A-1010
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 16 of 24 PageID 1207
A-1011
Exhibit K
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 17 of 24 PageID 1208
A-1012
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 18 of 24 PageID 1209
A-1013
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 19 of 24 PageID 1210
A-1014
Exhibit L
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 20 of 24 PageID 1211
RE: CBSE Reminder 7/13/16, 1:39 PM
Thank You
Nausheen Zainulabeddin, MS II
USF Morsani College of Medicine
You are not obligated to take any one administration of the CBSE. But realize, it gets harder to “pass” each
time.
I would STRONGLY advise you to take the CBSE under the same testing conditions as you will use for Step
1. If that means no accommodations, then use no accommodations. Please speak with Dr. Specter or me
before requesting these accommodations. We want you to succeed on Step one.
FS
https://outlook.office.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemI…lowWuke%2FJAACMfu0SAAA%3D&IsPrintView=1&wid=4&ispopout=1&path= Page 1 of 5
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 21 of 24 PageID 1212
RE: CBSE Reminder 7/13/16, 1:39 PM
I had talked to Dr. Specter last week regarding CBSE. I have been making up examinations throughout past 2 weeks
including EBCR exam I will be taking tomorrow. Dr. Specter recommended taking CBSE March 28th as 1st assessment as I
have not prepared at all. I am going through the process of submitting all materials for accommodations for USMLE exam. I
am requesting double time accommodations for CBSE on March 28th. Let me know if anything else is required on my behalf.
Thank You
Nausheen Zainulabeddin, MS II
USF Morsani College of Medicine
Good AFernoon,
One last reminder prior to the examina1on: Examinees are to open Internet Explorer (Windows) or Safari
(Mac) – no Firefox or Chrome. Load the following URL in the search line hPp://wbt.nbme.org/exam. At that
<me, the student will be asked to download a secure browser. Follow the instruc<ons for the download. Click
on the PRIOR TO TEST DAY icon for an exam compa<bility check. If ok, the screen will prompt the student to
launch a prac<ce test to complete the process. This link has a tutorial (highly recommend you view this) as
well as a 10 ques<on Prac<ce Test. Please review at your own pace. Hold “CONTROL”, “SHIFT” AND “Q”
buGons to escape this screen. This will return you to the secure browser download screen. In addi<on, be
sure to completely read the aPachments to this email.
Please delete ALL previously downloaded secure browsers before you arrive at the tes1ng room (1096/1097)
on Thursday.
Remember, unlike the Step 1, there are no built-in breaks aFer each sec<on of the exam.
Best Regards,
Bobby
Roberta (Bobby) Collins
Academic Service Administrator, Special Projects
Execu1ve Chief Proctor, NBME
(813)-974-5793
If life was fair, Elvis would be alive and all the impersonators would
be dead.--Johnny Carson
I am easily satisfied with the very best - Winston Churchill
https://outlook.office.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemI…lowWuke%2FJAACMfu0SAAA%3D&IsPrintView=1&wid=4&ispopout=1&path= Page 2 of 5
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 22 of 24 PageID 1213
RE: CBSE Reminder 7/13/16, 1:39 PM
Do bring:
Computer
Power cord
Mouse (if you want)
Ear plugs (foamies without cables/strings)
Ethernet cable
USF student ID (not medical student badge)
car/house keys (will be left in bin with proctor)
Yourself
Don't bring:
Anything else (including food, wallets, candy, drinks, etc.)
Mrs. Collins is Cc'd on here if you have any further questions that aren't addressed in the above/below messages.
Happy studying,
Nicole and Trevor
Hey everyone,
Below is an email from Bobby Collins about the CSBE. Scroll down if you want to read it all.
High Yield
She will be speaking to us Feb 25th after the mandatory TBL class about registration for the CSBE.
1096/1097 not open for business Wednesday, March 13th, 1pm until Thursday, March 14th, after the last CSBE test
taker is finished.
CSBE will be delivered in 2 sessions on Thursday, March 14th
https://outlook.office.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemI…lowWuke%2FJAACMfu0SAAA%3D&IsPrintView=1&wid=4&ispopout=1&path= Page 3 of 5
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 23 of 24 PageID 1214
RE: CBSE Reminder 7/13/16, 1:39 PM
A-1017
Students will be split based on last names starting with:
A,C,E,G,I,J,K,M,O,Q,S,U,W = AM session (check in starting 07:15 AM, doors closed at 07:30, exam
starting at 07:50 AM)
B,D,F,H,L,N,P,R,T,V,X,Y,Z = PM session (check in starting at 12:30 PM, doors closed at 12:45, exam
starting at 1:05 PM)
In case you haven't heard, the CSBE is required for everyone.
Happy studying,
Nicole and Trevor
Bobby
Roberta (Bobby) Collins
Academic Service Administrator, Special Projects
Execu1ve Chief Proctor, NBME
https://outlook.office.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemI…lowWuke%2FJAACMfu0SAAA%3D&IsPrintView=1&wid=4&ispopout=1&path= Page 4 of 5
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 24 of 24 PageID 1215
RE: CBSE Reminder 7/13/16, 1:39 PM
A-1018
rcollins@health.usf.edu
(o) 813-974-5793 (f) 974-2976
If life was fair, Elvis would be alive and all the impersonators would
be dead.--Johnny Carson
https://outlook.office.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemI…lowWuke%2FJAACMfu0SAAA%3D&IsPrintView=1&wid=4&ispopout=1&path= Page 5 of 5
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1216
A-1019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN,
Plaintiff,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
Thereto
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1217
A-1020
Respectfully submitted on this 19th day of February, 2017.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A-1021
·1· · · · · · · · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
· · · · · · · ·FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·TAMPA DIVISION
·4
·6· · · · · · ·Plaintiff,
·7· ·vs.
11
14
19
20
21
22
23
A-1022
·1· APPEARANCES:
·2
·7
· · Counsel for Defendant:
·8
· · · · RAY POOLE, ESQUIRE
·9· · · CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
· · · · 200 West Forsyth Street
10· · · Suite 1700
· · · · Jacksonville, Florida 32202
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 182 PageID 1220
A-1023
·1· · · · · · · · · · · I N D E X
·2
·3· Called by the PLAINTIFF
·4· WITNESS:· DR. STEVEN SPECTER
·5
·6· ·DIRECT EXAMINATION· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·5
·7· ·BY MR. APPS
·8· ·CROSS-EXAMINATION· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 145
·9· ·BY MR. POOLE
10· ·CERTIFICATE OF OATH· · · · · · · · · · · · · · 154
11· ·CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER· · · · · · · · · · · · 153
12· ·ERRATA SHEET· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·151
13· ·Witness Notification Letter· · · · · · · · · · 152
14
15· · · · · · · · · · · E X H I B I T S
16· ·Exhibit Number 1 (30(b)(6) Notice)· · · · · · ·13
17· ·Exhibit Number 2 (06-07-10 USF letter)· · · · ·27
18· ·Exhibit Number 3 (10-11-11 USF letter)· · · · ·32
19· ·Exhibit Number 4 (02-07-13 USF letter)· · · · ·36
20· ·Exhibit Number 5 (February 2012 email string)· 41
21· ·Exhibit Number 6 (August 6, 2010 Report)· · · ·44
22· ·Exhibit Number 7 (February 2012 email string)· 48
23· ·Exhibit Number 8 (02-09-12 email string)· · · ·50
24· ·Exhibit Number 9 (02-21-12 USF letter)· · · · ·53
25· ·Exhibit Number 10 (Syllabus)· · · · · · · · · ·65
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Nausheen Zainulabeddin
vs. USF BOT Appeal No.
17-12134, 17-11888, 17-12376
FRAP 25(b) through (d) (see reverse) requires that at or before the time of filing a paper,
a party must serve a copy on the other parties to the appeal or review. In addition, the
person who made service must certify that the other parties have been served, indicating
the date and manner of service, the names of the persons served, and their addresses.
You may use this form to fulfill this requirement. Please type or print legibly.
and properly addressed to the persons whose names and addresses are listed below:
Please complete and attach this form to the original document and to any copies you are
filing with the court, and to all copies you are serving on other parties to the appeal.
ix