Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 232

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT


_______________________________________________________

APPEAL NO. 17-11888


APPEAL NO. 17-12134
APPEAL NO. 17-12376
_________________________________________________________

NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

v.

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES


DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
_________________________________________________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (TAMPA DIVISON)
CASE NO. 8:16-cv-00637 (Hon. James S. Moody)
____________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF APPENDIX
VOLUME VI OF XII: DOCKET 29.1 (cont.) to 29.11
(Pages A-1024 TO A-1227)
___________________________

APPELLANT
Nausheen Zainulabeddin
4730 South Woodlawn Ave. Apt 3D
Chicago, IL 60615
nausheenkhawaja@gmail.com

Pro Se
INDEX

VOL. Tab Date Title Page


numbers
A-
I 2 1/22/16 Complaint filed in the Circuit 1-58
Court of the 13th Judicial
Circuit in and for Hillsborough
County, Florida
I 2-1 1/22/16 Dkt. 2 Exhibit A 59-64

I 2-2 1/22/16 Dkt. 2 Exhibit B 65-167


I 2-3 1/22/16 Dkt. 2 Exhibit C 168-169
I 2-4 1/22/16 Dkt. 2 Exhibit D 170-171
I 2-5 1/22/16 Dkt. 2 Exhibit E 172-175
I 2-6 1/22/16 Dkt. 2 Exhibit F 176-178
I 2-7 1/22/16 Dkt. 2 Exhibit G 179-180
I 1 3/17/16 Defendant Notice of Removal 181-186
I 1-1 3/17/16 Dkt. 1 Exhibit B: Summons 187-190
I 1-2 3/17/16 Dkt. 1 Exhibit C: Notice of 191-193
Appearance
I 1-3 3/17/16 Dkt. 1 Exhibit D: Designation 194-196
of E-mail Addresses
I 1-4 3/17/16 Dkt. 1 Exhibit F: Civil Cover 1971-198
Sheet
I 4 3/24/16 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 199-209
and for more Definite
Statement and Supporting
Memorandum of Law
II 6 3/30/16 Plaintiff’s Response in 210-222
Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss and for
more Definite statement, with

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

XI 64-1 05/17/17 Dkt. 64 Exhibit A to E 2199


XI & 64-2 05/17/17 Dkt. 64 Exhibit F 2214
XII
XII 64-3 05/17/17 Dkt. 64 Exhibit G 2300
XII 64-4 05/17/17 Dkt. 64 Exhibit H 2345
XII 64-5 05/17/17 Dkt. 64 Exhibit 2400
XII 64-6 05/17/17 Dkt. 64 Exhibit 2304
XII 66 05/19/17 Order granting Dkt. 64 in favor 2405
of Defendant
XII 67 05/22/17 Bill of Costs 2412
XII 69 05/22/17 Direction to Clerk for Notice of 2413
Appeal dated May 10, 2017
XII 70 05/22/17 Notice of Appeal to USCA FC 2429
and Petition of Review
XII 71 05/22/17 Notice of Appeal for Dkt. 66 2431
dated May 22, 2017
XII 74 05/23/17 Directions to the Clerk; 2433
Transfer Error

viii
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court

Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees


Dashboard

Florida Middle District Court


Judge: James S Moody, Jr
Referred: Thomas G Wilson
Case #: 8:16-cv-00637
Nature of Suit 440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights
Cause 29:0794 Job Discrimination (Handicap)
Case Filed: Mar 17, 2016
Terminated: Apr 20, 2017

Docket Parties (2) Related Cases (4) News

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

John Sikes Gibbs


Constangy, Brooks, Smith, & Prophete, LLP
egibbs@constangy.com

J. Ray Poole, Jr.


Constangy, Brooks, Smith, & Prophete, LLP
rpoole@constangy.com

Plaintiff
Represented By
Nausheen Zainulabeddin
Stanley Robert Apps
Stanley R. Apps, P.A.
stan.apps@gmail.com

0:17-prici-11888 - Nausheen Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Bo 04/27/2017

0:17-prici-12134 - Nausheen Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Bo 05/11/2017

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

0:17-prici-12376 - Nausheen Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Bo 05/24/2017

0:17-cvpri-02083 - Zainulabeddin v. USF Board of Trustees 05/25/2017

Navigation Edit Alert

Docket last updated: 09/01/2017 11:59 PM EDT Update Now

Friday, July 28, 2017

82 appeal USCA Mandate Fri 12:08 PM


MANDATE of USCA for the Federal Circuit terminating appeal as to70 Notice of appeal filed by Nausheen
Zainulabeddin Issued as Mandate: 7/27/17 USCA number: 17-2083 ML. (JNB)

81 appeal USCA order Fri 12:07 PM


ORDER of USCA for the Federal Circuit:. The motion to acknowledge Ms. Zainulabeddin's filing as timely31 is
granted. The petition for panel rehearing30 is denied. All other pending motions28 3233 are denied as moot.
No further motions will be docketed or considered as to70 Notice of appeal filed by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.
EOD: 7/27/17; USCA number: 17-2083 ML. (JNB)

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

80 3 pgs appeal USCA order Tue 11:57 AM

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)

Thursday, June 08, 2017


79 appeal Designation of Record on Appeal Fri 2:55 PM
DESIGNATION of Record on Appeal (Directions to the Clerk) by Nausheen Zainulabeddin re71 Notice of
appeal.(AG)

Att: 1 Mailing Envelope

Monday, June 05, 2017

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

78 4 pgs notice Notice (Other) Tue 3:49 PM

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

77 2 pgs order Order on motion to supplement Mon 9:12 AM

ORDER denying 63 Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal. Signed by Judge James S.
Moody, Jr. on 6/5/2017. (LN)

Wednesday, May 31, 2017


appeal Transmittal to USCA Wed 8:43 AM
TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding Order granting appeal in forma pauperis re71 Notice of appeal,60 Notice
of appeal USCA number: 17-11888 G and 17-12134 C. (BSN)

Tuesday, May 30, 2017


76 order Order on motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency Tue 5:37 PM
ORDER granting 72 Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency. Signed by Magistrate
Judge Thomas G. Wilson on 5/30/2017. (Wilson, Thomas)

75 5 pgs respm Response in Opposition to Motion Tue 5:01 PM

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)

appeal Transmittal to USCA Tue 10:21 AM


TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding Order granting In Forma Pauperis re60 Notice of appeal USCA number:
17-12134 C. (BSN)

Wednesday, May 24, 2017


73 56 pgs appeal Transmittal of initial appeal package Wed 3:18 PM

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)

appeal Transmittal to USCA Wed 2:47 PM


TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding Order granting appeal in forma pauperis re44 Notice of appeal USCA
number: 17-11888 G. (BSN)

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

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

74 4 pgs notice Notice (Other) Wed 3:23 PM

DIRECTIONS TO THE CLERK by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. (BSN)

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)

Monday, May 22, 2017


72 motion Appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency Wed 3:10 PM
MOTION for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. (KMM)

71 2 pgs appeal Notice of appeal Wed 3:09 PM

NOTICE OF APPEAL to USCA as to66 Order on Motion for Taxation of Costs by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.
Filing fee not paid. (KMM)

70 2 pgs appeal Notice of appeal Wed 3:07 PM

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)

Att: 1 2 pgs Petition for Review

69 16 pgs notice Notice (Other) Wed 3:03 PM

Directions to the Clerk, by Nausheen Zainulabeddin (KMM)

67 1 pgs misc Bill of costs Mon 8:30 AM

BILL OF COSTS taxed against Plaintiff in the amount of $5,382.15. Signed by Deputy Clerk. (AD)

Friday, May 19, 2017


66 7 pgs order Order on Motion for Taxation of Costs Fri 10:56 AM

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)

Wednesday, May 17, 2017


65 misc Certificate of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement Thu 10:05 AM
CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re3 Related case order and track 2
notice by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. (BSN)

64 14 pgs respm Response in Opposition to Motion Thu 10:03 AM

RESPONSE in Opposition re55 MOTION for Taxation of Costs with Verified Bill of Costs and Supporting
Memorandum of Law filed by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(BSN)

Att: 1 19 pgs Exhibit A-E,

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

Att: 2 99 pgs Exhibit F,

Att: 3 45 pgs Exhibit G,

Att: 4 55 pgs Exhibit H,


Att: 5 3 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 6 3 pgs Exhibit,


Att: 7 2 pgs Exhibit

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

63 19 pgs motion Supplement Tue 3:55 PM

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)

Att: 1 38 pgs Exhibit A,


Att: 2 101 pgs Exhibit 1,

Att: 3 102 pgs Exhibit 2,


Att: 4 112 pgs Exhibit 3,

Att: 5 161 pgs Exhibit 4,

Att: 6 126 pgs Exhibit 5,


Att: 7 72 pgs Exhibit 6,

Att: 8 100 pgs Exhibit 7,


Att: 9 87 pgs Exhibit 8,

Att: 10 141 pgs Exhibit 9,

Att: 11 91 pgs Exhibit 10,


Att: 12 130 pgs Exhibit 11,

Att: 13 139 pgs Exhibit 12

Wednesday, May 10, 2017


62 15 pgs appeal Transmittal of initial appeal package Thu 10:52 AM
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 re60 Notice of appeal. (BSN)

61 5 pgs motion Appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency Thu 10:44 AM

MOTION for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(BSN)


Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson.

Att: 1 84 pgs Exhibit

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

60 2 pgs appeal Notice of appeal Thu 10:43 AM

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)

Monday, May 08, 2017

59 2 pgs appeal Designation of Record on Appeal Tue 4:58 PM

DESIGNATION (Directions to the Clerk) of Record on Appeal by Nausheen Zainulabeddin re44 Notice of
appeal(AG)

Att: 1 12 pgs Exhibit A

Friday, May 05, 2017


appeal Transmittal to USCA Fri 8:11 AM
TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding ORDER granting Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of
indigency re44 Notice of appeal USCA number: 17-11888 G. (KMM)

Thursday, May 04, 2017


58 order Order on motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency Thu 4:21 PM
ORDER granting 45 Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency. Signed by Magistrate
Judge Thomas G. Wilson on 5/4/2017. (Wilson, Thomas)

57 order Order on motion to stay Thu 1:57 PM


ENDORSED ORDER denying as moot 56 motion to stay. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 5/4/2017.
(LN)

Wednesday, May 03, 2017

56 16 pgs motion Stay Thu 10:57 AM

MOTION to stay documents re48 ,49 ,50 and51 pending appeal by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(BSN)

Att: 1 66 pgs Exhibit

55 6 pgs motion Taxation of Costs Wed 5:26 PM

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.

Att: 1 26 pgs Exhibit Motion to Tax Costs Exhibit A

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)

53 order Order on Motion to Continue Wed 11:18 AM


ENDORSED ORDER denying 51 Motion to Continue. 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

52 order Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney Wed 11:17 AM


ENDORSED ORDER granting 47 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Stanley Robert Apps terminated.
Pro se Plaintiff's address of record is 4409 W. Varn Avenue, Tampa, FL 33616. Signed by Judge James S.
Moody, Jr on 5/3/2017. (LN)

Tuesday, May 02, 2017

51 4 pgs motion Continue Wed 10:49 AM

MOTION to Continue by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. (BSN)

Monday, May 01, 2017

50 23 pgs motion Recusal Tue 12:48 PM

MOTION for Recusal by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(BSN)

Att: 1 70 pgs Exhibit A-F

49 13 pgs misc Affidavit Tue 12:47 PM

AFFIDAVIT of Nausheen Zainulabeddin re:48 MOTION for Reconsideration re43 Judgment by Nausheen
Zainulabeddin. (BSN)

48 26 pgs motion Reconsideration Tue 12:46 PM

MOTION for Reconsideration re43 Judgment by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(BSN)

Att: 1 60 pgs Exhibit 1-14,

Att: 2 79 pgs Exhibit 15-32,

Att: 3 89 pgs Exhibit 33-43,


Att: 4 129 pgs Exhibit 44-57

Thursday, April 27, 2017

47 3 pgs motion Withdraw as Attorney Thu 7:58 PM

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.

46 64 pgs appeal Transmittal of initial appeal package Thu 9:41 AM

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)

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

45 5 pgs motion Appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency Thu 9:14 AM


MOTION for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(BSN)
Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson.

Att: 1 30 pgs Exhibit

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

44 2 pgs appeal Notice of appeal Thu 9:13 AM

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to42 Order on motion for summary judgment by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. Filing fee
not paid. (BSN)

Thursday, April 20, 2017


43 2 pgs misc Judgment Thu 9:07 AM

JUDGMENT in favor of University of South Florida Board of Trustees against Nausheen Zainulabeddin (Signed
by Deputy Clerk) (BSN)

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

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)

Friday, March 24, 2017

41 5 pgs respm Memorandum in opposition Fri 12:18 PM

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)

Att: 1 4 pgs Exhibit A,

Att: 2 4 pgs Exhibit B

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

40 2 pgs adr Mediation report Wed 3:04 PM

MEDIATION report Hearing held on 3/22/2017. Hearing outcome: IMPASSE. (Shulman, Christopher)

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

39 order Order on Motion for Leave to File Tue 1:14 PM


ENDORSED ORDER granting 38 Motion for Leave to File Surreply. Surreply shall be filed within seven (7) days
of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 3/21/2017. (LN)

Saturday, March 18, 2017

38 3 pgs motion Leave to File Document Sat 2:57 AM

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)

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

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

37 9 pgs respm Reply to Response to Motion Wed 2:00 PM

REPLY to Response to Motion re22 MOTION for summary judgment filed by University of South Florida Board
of Trustees. (Mans, Lori)

Wednesday, March 08, 2017

36 1 pgs order Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney Thu 5:27 PM

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)

Tuesday, March 07, 2017

35 3 pgs motion Withdraw as Attorney Tue 5:00 PM

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)

Wednesday, March 01, 2017

34 order Order on Motion for Leave to File Wed 3:43 PM


ENDORSED ORDER granting 33 Motion for Leave to File Reply. Reply is limited to 10 pages and shall be filed
within 14 days. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 3/1/2017. (LN)

33 3 pgs motion Leave to File Document Wed 2:28 PM

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.)

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

32 order Order on motion to extend time Tue 9:16 AM


ENDORSED ORDER granting 31 Joint Motion to extend time to conduct Mediation until MARCH 22, 2017.
Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 2/28/2017. (LN)

Monday, February 27, 2017

31 3 pgs motion Extend time Mon 4:23 PM

Joint MOTION to extend time to conduct Mediation until March 22, 2017 by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. (Apps,
Stanley)

Sunday, February 19, 2017

30 2 pgs notice Notice (Other) Sun 6:40 PM

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)

Att: 1 86 pgs Exhibit Deposition of Ambuj Kumar, MD,


Att: 2 1 pgs Exhibit,

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

Att: 3 2 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 4 6 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 5 6 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 6 19 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 7 2 pgs Exhibit,


Att: 8 2 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 9 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 10 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 11 2 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 12 1 pgs Exhibit,


Att: 13 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 14 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 15 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 16 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 17 8 pgs Exhibit

29 2 pgs notice Notice (Other) Sun 6:15 PM

NOTICE by Nausheen Zainulabeddin re27 Response in Opposition to Motion Notice of Filing Deposition
Transcript of Dr. Steven Specter, Ph.D.(Apps, Stanley)

Att: 1 182 pgs Exhibit Deposition of Steven Specter,

Att: 2 6 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 3 2 pgs Exhibit,


Att: 4 2 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 5 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 6 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 7 6 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 8 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 9 1 pgs Exhibit,


Att: 10 2 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 11 17 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 12 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 13 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 14 7 pgs Exhibit,

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

Att: 15 9 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 16 9 pgs Exhibit,


Att: 17 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 18 6 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 19 8 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 20 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 21 2 pgs Exhibit,


Att: 22 1 pgs Exhibit

28 2 pgs notice Notice (Other) Sun 5:38 PM

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)

Att: 1 27 pgs Affidavit of Nausheen Zainulabeddin,

Att: 2 16 pgs Exhibit,


Att: 3 8 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 4 15 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 5 24 pgs Exhibit

27 20 pgs respm Response in Opposition to Motion Sun 4:13 PM

RESPONSE in Opposition re22 MOTION for summary judgment with supporting Memorandum of Law filed by
Nausheen Zainulabeddin. (Apps, Stanley)

26 12 pgs misc Statement of undisputed facts Sun 4:11 PM

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)

Att: 1 8 pgs Exhibit A,

Att: 2 5 pgs Exhibit B,

Att: 3 9 pgs Exhibit C

Thursday, February 09, 2017

25 2 pgs misc Notice of withdrawal of motion Thu 4:00 PM

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)

Monday, February 06, 2017

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

24 order Order on motion to extend time Mon 9:49 AM


ENDORSED ORDER granting 21 Joint Motion to extend time to conduct mediation. Extension granted through
MARCH 1, 2017. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 2/6/2017. (LN)

Saturday, February 04, 2017

23 2 pgs notice Notice (Other) Sat 5:03 PM

NOTICE by University of South Florida Board of Trustees re22 MOTION for summary judgment (Poole, J.)

Att: 1 120 pgs Exhibit Deposition of Nausheen Zainulabeddin,

Att: 2 115 pgs Exhibit Deposition of Nausheen Zainulabeddin Part 2,

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,

Att: 5 73 pgs Exhibit Deposition of Dr. Saundra Stock,


Att: 6 61 pgs Exhibit Deposition of Dr. Saundra Stock and Exhibits Thereto Part 2

22 25 pgs motion Summary judgment Sat 3:49 PM

MOTION for summary judgment by University of South Florida Board of Trustees. (Poole, J.)

Friday, February 03, 2017

21 3 pgs motion Extend time Fri 8:45 PM

Joint MOTION to extend time to Complete Mediation by University of South Florida Board of Trustees. (Poole,
J.)

Thursday, February 02, 2017

20 2 pgs order Order on Motion to Take Deposition Thu 5:30 PM

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)

Wednesday, February 01, 2017

19 6 pgs motion Take Deposition Wed 4:43 PM

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)

Att: 1 3 pgs Exhibit A

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

18 2 pgs order Order appointing mediator/scheduling mediation Tue 9:39 AM

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)

Friday, December 09, 2016

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

17 2 pgs adr Notice of selection of mediator Fri 10:32 PM

NOTICE OF SELECTION of Christopher M. Shulman as mediator by University of South Florida Board of


Trustees. (Poole, J.)

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

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)

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

15 4 pgs motion Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Tue 3:53 PM

Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by University of South Florida Board of Trustees.
(Poole, J.)

Wednesday, November 09, 2016

14 5 pgs order Order referring case to mediation Wed 1:55 PM

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)

Friday, September 09, 2016


13 order Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney Fri 9:34 AM
ENDORSED ORDER granting 12 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney John Sikes Gibbs terminated.
Attorney John F. Dickinson is directed to file a Notice of Appearance in this case. Signed by Judge James S.
Moody, Jr on 9/9/2016. (LN)

Thursday, September 08, 2016

12 3 pgs motion Withdraw as Attorney Thu 3:57 PM

Unopposed MOTION for Gibbs to withdraw as attorney by University of South Florida Board of Trustees.
(Poole, J.)

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

11 32 pgs answer Answer to Complaint Wed 1:48 PM

ANSWER and affirmative defenses to Complaint by University of South Florida Board of Trustees.(Gibbs, John)

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

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

10 9 pgs order Order on motion to dismiss Wed 11:18 AM

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)

Wednesday, April 06, 2016

9 3 pgs order Case management and scheduling order Wed 10:23 AM

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)

Monday, April 04, 2016

8 misc Case Management Report Mon 2:02 PM


CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (Gibbs, John)

Wednesday, March 30, 2016


7 notice Notice of pendency of related cases Wed 5:23 PM
NOTICE of pendency of related cases re3 Related case order and track 2 notice per Local Rule 1.04(d) by
Nausheen Zainulabeddin. Related case(s): yes (Apps, Stanley)

6 13 pgs respm Response in Opposition to Motion Wed 4:46 PM

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)

Att: 1 6 pgs Exhibit A

Friday, March 25, 2016

5 notice Notice of pendency of related cases Fri 1:15 PM


NOTICE of pendency of related cases per Local Rule 1.04(d) by University of South Florida Board of Trustees.
Related case(s): No (Gibbs, John)

Thursday, March 24, 2016

4 11 pgs motion Dismiss Thu 2:15 PM

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)

Monday, March 21, 2016


3 order Related case order and track 2 notice Mon 4:27 PM
RELATED CASE ORDER AND NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - track 2. Issued by Deputy Clerk
on 3/21/2016. (AR)

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

Thursday, March 17, 2016


2 cmp Complaint Fri 12:03 PM
COMPLAINT against University of South Florida Board of Trustees with Jury Demand filed by Nausheen
Zainulabeddin . Originally filed in state court on 1/22/16.(BSN) Modified on 3/18/2016 (BSN)

Att: 1 Exhibit

1 6 pgs notice Notice of Removal Fri 12:01 PM

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)

Att: 1 4 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 2 3 pgs Exhibit,


Att: 3 3 pgs Exhibit,
Att: 4 2 pgs Civil Cover Sheet

Showing All

Last viewed: Sep 02, 2017 2:22 AM EDT

Support • Privacy • Terms • About


PacerMonitor, LLC © 2016. Made in NYC

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 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 182 PageID 1221

A-1024
·1· ·Exhibit Number 11 (04-05-13 USF letter)· · · · 70
·2· ·Exhibit Number 12 (03-07-13 email string)· · · 80
·3· ·Exhibit Number 13 (Neuropsychological· · · · · 95
·4· ·Evaluation/Addendum Updated)
·5· ·Exhibit Number 14 (Comprehensive Med/Psych· · ·98
·6· ·Systems, Inc. Abbreviated Neuropsychological
·7· ·Evaluation)
·8· ·Exhibit Number 15 (Defendant's Amended· · · · ·101
·9· ·Objections and Answers to Plaintiff's First
10· ·Set of Interrogatories)
11· ·Exhibit Number 16 (Professionalism email)· · · 101
12· ·Exhibit Number 17 (Defendant's Objections and· 108
13· ·Answers to Plaintiff's Third Set of
14· ·Interrogatories)
15· ·Exhibit Number 18 (Defendant's Amended· · · · ·120
16· ·Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's First
17· ·Request or Admissions)
18· ·Exhibit Number 19 (March 29, 2013 letter from· 133
19· ·Dr. Steven Specter to Disability Services)
20· ·Exhibit Number 20 (April 2013 email string)· · 137
21· ·Exhibit Number 21 (02-28-13 email string)· · · 142
22
23
24
25
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 182 PageID 1222

A-1025
·1· · · · · · · · · · P R O C E E D I N G S
·2· · · · · ·STEVEN SPECTER, Ph.D., called as a witness by
·3· the PLAINTIFF, having been first duly sworn, testified
·4· as follows:
·5· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I do.
·6· · · · · · · · · · ·DIRECT EXAMINATION
·7· BY MR. APPS:
·8· · · Q.· ·Good morning.· Can you please state your full
·9· name for the record?
10· · · A.· ·My name is Steven Carl Specter.
11· · · Q.· ·Are you employed by the University of South
12· Florida?
13· · · A.· ·I am.
14· · · Q.· ·And what is your job title at the University?
15· · · A.· ·I am a professor of molecular medicine and
16· associate dean for alumni relations and advancement.
17· · · Q.· ·And in the times with which this case is
18· concerned, roughly from 2010 to 2012, through 2012, what
19· -- did you have the same job title at that time?
20· · · A.· ·I did not.· At that time I was associate dean
21· for student affairs.
22· · · Q.· ·And what were your job duties as associate dean
23· for student affairs?
24· · · A.· ·They were diverse.· They involved being an
25· advocate for students, overseeing student services,
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 182 PageID 1223

A-1026
·1· being the disciplinarian for the students, and being a
·2· liaison between the students and the administration.
·3· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And when did you cease being the
·4· associate dean of student affairs?
·5· · · A.· ·August 1st of 2014.
·6· · · Q.· ·And when did you begin that position?
·7· · · A.· ·I started in May of 2001.
·8· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And are you familiar with the Academic
·9· Performance Review Committee which is often abbreviated
10· in the things I've seen as the APRC?
11· · · A.· ·Correct.· Yes.· I'm very familiar.· I served as
12· an ex officio member as the student advocate in those
13· meetings.
14· · · Q.· ·And that was getting into my -- go ahead.
15· · · A.· ·Let me just say ex officio, I had no voting
16· responsibilities.
17· · · Q.· ·Did you just say -- so you served as a sort of
18· advocacy role for students?
19· · · A.· ·Correct.
20· · · Q.· ·And so can you describe for me what the APRC is
21· and what it does in relation to students at the Morsani
22· School of Medicine?
23· · · A.· ·Yes.· So the responsibilities of the committee
24· were to review student academic performance, to review
25· student professional behavior, and also to make
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 7 of 182 PageID 1224

A-1027
·1· recommendation to the dean for promotion each year of
·2· successful students.· And when I say review academic
·3· performance and professionalism, it was really to make
·4· recommendations for those people who had deficiencies in
·5· academic performance or professional behavior.
·6· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So does that mean that it required a
·7· vote of the APRC for students to be promoted from, say,
·8· year one to year two or year two to year three in the MD
·9· program?
10· · · A.· ·Correct.
11· · · Q.· ·And would some students be placed on something
12· like a consent agenda based on their success in the
13· program or anything like that or would each student's
14· case be reviewed individually?
15· · · A.· ·For students who had no deficiencies to deal
16· with it was kind of a consent agenda as you put it. A
17· whole class would be put forward for promotion to the
18· next year pending any other academic issues with the
19· individual or professionalism issues with the
20· individual.
21· · · Q.· ·And how often does the APRC meet or does it
22· have regular meetings?
23· · · A.· ·They do have a regular schedule of meetings,
24· typically once a month.· There may be sometimes in the
25· summer when they don't meet, but pretty much it's on a
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 8 of 182 PageID 1225

A-1028
·1· once a month basis.
·2· · · Q.· ·And so at these once a month meetings students
·3· with academic deficiencies would be discussed?
·4· · · A.· ·Correct.
·5· · · Q.· ·How would the APRC determine what -- what
·6· students should be on their agenda for a particular
·7· month?
·8· · · A.· ·So typically the registrar would receive from a
·9· course director the name of a student who had been
10· unsuccessful academically in one way or another.· And
11· what I mean by that, it could be an exam, it could be in
12· a practical, but that deficiency would show up and it
13· was the responsibility of the course directors to bring
14· a student's name forward.
15· · · · · ·There was a meeting of the leadership, the
16· chair of the committee and the registrar, I was involved
17· in those meetings, and we would determine which of those
18· individuals whose names were brought forward would be on
19· the agenda.
20· · · · · ·It was rare to make any change from the
21· recommendation made by a course director, but sometimes
22· because there was an accumulation of things, something
23· that was deemed minor may have been part of a pattern of
24· behavior that was brought up.
25· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Let me go through that a little more
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 9 of 182 PageID 1226

A-1029
·1· slowly.· It seemed to have several steps.
·2· · · · · ·So the registrar would send a notice to the
·3· APRC of some kind of academic deficiency or professional
·4· deficiency?
·5· · · A.· ·Well, they wouldn't send a notice.· They would
·6· be put on the agenda and the agenda was made available
·7· on a secured site for committee members to look at in
·8· advance.
·9· · · Q.· ·And then once the student was placed on the
10· agenda, then the course director in the course where
11· they had the deficiency would make a recommendation?
12· · · A.· ·They would make a presentation to the committee
13· and they would make a recommendation for an action.
14· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And what would be the -- some typical
15· actions that might be recommended?
16· · · A.· ·So if a student failed an exam it might be
17· simply that a letter of concern might be sent to the
18· student that we recognize they had a deficiency and a
19· recommendation might be made to the student.· So, for
20· example, if a student was struggling academically in a
21· particular content area our recommendation would be to
22· meet with the dean of students to discuss it and usually
23· a recommendation for a tutor.
24· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Do course directors ever recommend no
25· action?
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 10 of 182 PageID 1227

A-1030
·1· · · A.· ·Not usually, no.· If there's been a failure
·2· there would be recommendation, even if it's just a
·3· letter of concern and ask them to come meet with the
·4· course director to make sure they're getting all the
·5· help they need.· I mean, primarily it was the job of the
·6· APRC to recommend that the student was getting the
·7· resources they needed to be successful.
·8· · · · · ·I'm not sure how much experience you have with
·9· medical schools, but medical schools are exceptional I
10· think compared to any other academic venue in the amount
11· of resources they put to helping students.· And
12· nationally the statistic is that something like 97
13· percent of medical students who start medical school
14· complete it and if you look at graduation rates in other
15· programs you'll find that they're far below that.
16· · · Q.· ·So if a student's failure was particularly
17· severe, would the course director recommend dismissal to
18· the APRC or would dismissal be an idea that would be
19· maybe raised by other persons than the course director?
20· · · A.· ·So you would not get a course director
21· recommending dismissal based on one course, and our
22· student handbook defines very clearly reasons for
23· dismissal that usually required failure in two or more
24· courses, but more often than not, if you had a student
25· who is having difficulty for the first time, meaning in
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 11 of 182 PageID 1228

A-1031
·1· a particular year, if they failed two courses the
·2· recommendation would be to repeat the year as a form of
·3· remediation.· If a student had failed only one course
·4· during the course of the year, they usually would be
·5· required to remediate that course in the summertime.
·6· And, again, all of this is spelled out in the student
·7· handbook.
·8· · · Q.· ·Is it your understanding that the medical
·9· school is required to follow the things that are spelled
10· out in the student handbook?
11· · · A.· ·It's a little difficult to answer what you said
12· because you used the word required.· The APRC follows
13· protocol, which means if something is deemed the proper
14· procedure there would have to be an extenuating
15· circumstance not to follow the precise recommendations.
16· · · · · ·So, for example, you might have a student fail
17· two courses and being allowed to remediate both of those
18· courses because of some unusual circumstance or, you
19· know, overrule something -- I'll give you an example.
20· · · · · ·We had a student who was in a clerkship, a
21· third year clerkship.· That clerkship happened to have
22· two parts to it, pediatrics and medicine.· They failed
23· both final exams, and the rule is you do that, you
24· repeat the course.· For this particular student, that
25· made no sense.· It was an excellent student.· And so I
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 12 of 182 PageID 1229

A-1032
·1· brought that student in and simply said, tell me what
·2· happened, and that student explained that a week before
·3· the exams their father had a stroke.· They thought they
·4· could tough it out, but in reality it was clear from
·5· their performance that they hadn't.· I then conveyed
·6· that to the course director.· They brought that back to
·7· the APRC and changed the recommendation from repeating
·8· the course to just taking the exams over when they had
·9· proper opportunity to study and a good frame of mind.
10· They passed those exams easily and that was rectified,
11· so that's kind of an extenuating circumstance.
12· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So the APRC follows what's in the
13· student handbook unless there are extenuating
14· circumstances that make another course of action more
15· appropriate?
16· · · A.· ·That's correct.· We follow the rules, but we
17· look at every case individually.
18· · · Q.· ·Okay.· These are some questions I should have
19· asked you earlier.· Oh, well.
20· · · · · ·Did you know that you are -- that you've been
21· designated by the University as a corporate designee
22· which means sort of a representative of the board of
23· trustees for purposes of answering some of your
24· questions today?
25· · · A.· ·I believe Ray told me that yesterday.
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 13 of 182 PageID 1230

A-1033
·1· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Good.
·2· · · A.· ·So it was new news, but, yes, I know.
·3· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Have you had an opportunity to review
·4· the topics that you're designated to testify about as
·5· a --
·6· · · A.· ·Yes.
·7· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· Okay.· So I'll just do this as
·8· · · Exhibit A, Lisa.· It's just the notice.· You have it
·9· · · already.
10· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 1 was marked for
11· identification.)
12· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· I just wanted to make sure that
13· · · you'd had an opportunity to see these.· There are
14· · · several topics, you know, by letter, from A through
15· · · W.
16· · · · · ·Ray, did you want to indicate which topics
17· · · Dr. Specter was going to be designated to talk about
18· · · or are you just designating him for all the topics?
19· · · · · ·MR. POOLE:· Well, I think, yeah, for all the
20· · · topics.· There may be, you know, someone else who
21· · · has -- because there's so many topics, there may be
22· · · someone else who has additional information or more
23· · · thorough information, but as far as an individual,
24· · · you know, any particular individual who has the most
25· · · comprehensive information about all of these things,
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 14 of 182 PageID 1231

A-1034
·1· · · I think Dr. Specter is the person.· He was at ground
·2· · · zero, if you will.
·3· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· Okay.· Thank you, Ray.
·4· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· And have you done anything to
·5· prepare for today's deposition, Dr. Specter?
·6· · · A.· ·I went back over some of the notes that I had
·7· of communications with Ms. Zainulabeddin, but not very
·8· much beside that.· I had a brief conversation with Ray
·9· about what to expect today.
10· · · Q.· ·You shouldn't tell me about your conversations
11· with your attorney, of course.
12· · · A.· ·I mean, there's nothing to tell you other than
13· to expect the proceedings.· It was more procedural.· It
14· wasn't about factual at all.
15· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And have you ever been deposed before?
16· · · A.· ·I have not been deposed in this manner before.
17· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And do you know Nausheen Zainulabeddin?
18· · · A.· ·Yes.
19· · · Q.· ·Can you recall, I don't know, as specifically
20· as you can, I guess, can you recall when you first met
21· Ms. Zainulabeddin?
22· · · A.· ·I couldn't give you a precise date, but it was
23· approximately three years prior to her entry into
24· medical school.· I do a lot of premed advising and she
25· came to me, I don't know through what sort of referral,
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 15 of 182 PageID 1232

A-1035
·1· but she came to me to ask for help to strengthen her as
·2· a candidate for medical school because she was -- she
·3· had struggled some in her applications.· She had applied
·4· before unsuccessfully and so I maintained a relationship
·5· with her for approximately three years while she was
·6· applying to medical school and helped her in whatever
·7· way I could to strengthen her application.
·8· · · Q.· ·So I guess that would mean you met her in
·9· around two thousand --
10· · · A.· ·-- '07 or '08.· Somewhere in that time frame.
11· · · Q.· ·Was she a master's student --
12· · · A.· ·She was.
13· · · Q.· ·-- in the -- in the school of medicine?
14· · · A.· ·In the school of medicine and anatomy.
15· · · Q.· ·Is that often viewed as a kind of course for
16· someone to help prepare for med school?
17· · · A.· ·There are many young people who have difficulty
18· getting into medical school who will seek out additional
19· educational opportunities.· I would say a master's in
20· anatomy is not one of the more popular roads to take,
21· but a master's program in one of the medically related
22· sciences is.
23· · · Q.· ·So during the period when you knew Ms.
24· Zainulabeddin before -- before she was admitted to
25· medical school, did you have occasional meetings with
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 16 of 182 PageID 1233

A-1036
·1· her during that time?
·2· · · A.· ·Occasional, yeah.
·3· · · Q.· ·How often would you say that would have been?
·4· · · A.· ·I would say over that two- to three-year period
·5· of time maybe half a dozen times.
·6· · · Q.· ·Okay.
·7· · · A.· ·Not extensively.
·8· · · Q.· ·And the content of those meetings was focused
·9· on how to -- how she could obtain admission to medical
10· school or improve her --
11· · · A.· ·Right; how she was doing academically, what
12· extracurricular things she was doing, how to structure
13· her application to make herself look as good a
14· candidate, what I would typically refer to as optimizing
15· her candidacy.
16· · · Q.· ·Did you see yourself as playing a mentor role
17· in regard to Ms. Zainulabeddin?
18· · · A.· ·In a minor sense, yes.· I mean, you know, I
19· probably talk to somewhere between 200 and 250 premeds a
20· year, some multiple times like her, some once, so
21· mentoring is kind of a loose term there, but it's a form
22· of mentoring certainly.
23· · · Q.· ·And then eventually she did obtain admission to
24· the Morsani College of Medicine, is that correct?
25· · · A.· ·She did, that's correct.
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 17 of 182 PageID 1234

A-1037
·1· · · Q.· ·And so did you have -- did you continue to have
·2· communications with her after she became a student in
·3· the MD program?
·4· · · A.· ·Absolutely.
·5· · · Q.· ·And what was the content generally of the
·6· communications you had with her when she was a medical
·7· student?
·8· · · A.· ·They were in my role as dean of students,
·9· unfortunately, very often in terms of her academic
10· struggles.
11· · · · · ·One of the things I was doing at that time was
12· arranging for tutoring for our medical students and so
13· some of those communications were helping her obtain a
14· tutor.· Sometimes it was talking about making sure she
15· was keeping in close contact with course directors with
16· material she was struggling with.· Sometimes it was
17· discussing how she was studying and things she might do
18· to improve her study habits and then as she got into
19· more severe academic difficulty it became options for
20· what she could do to set herself up in the following
21· year to be successful when it was clear she was going to
22· have to retake the first year of medical school.
23· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Let's see.· Are you aware that Ms.
24· Zainulabeddin's been diagnosed as having attention
25· deficit hyperactive disorder, ADHD?
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 18 of 182 PageID 1235

A-1038
·1· · · A.· ·I became aware of that in 2013.· It was not
·2· something that she made the school aware of prior to
·3· that time.
·4· · · Q.· ·Okay.
·5· · · A.· ·She was tested, as you know, in 2010 and that
·6· diagnosis was of attention deficit, but it was a very
·7· equivocal evaluation by Dr. Schoenberg.
·8· · · Q.· ·And when you say equivocal, what do you mean?
·9· · · A.· ·If you look at the document, the language she
10· uses is not definitive, number one, and, number two,
11· probably the most telling thing is every other student I
12· have seen who has attention deficit has been recommended
13· for extra time in testing as well as the distraction
14· free environment, and in his report in 2010 he did not
15· recommend additional time for testing.· He did recommend
16· a distraction free environment.
17· · · Q.· ·And do you know when you first -- do you have a
18· sense of when you first reviewed his -- Dr. Schoenberg's
19· report from 2010?
20· · · A.· ·So the report was completed in September. I
21· don't believe I saw it until almost December.· It was
22· one of those things where he got overly busy and never
23· got it done and it wasn't until we made inquiry about
24· what happened to the report that we finally got it and
25· that was when I received a copy and read it and
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 19 of 182 PageID 1236

A-1039
·1· discussed it with Ms. Zainulabeddin.
·2· · · Q.· ·So you said you got it in December 2010?
·3· · · A.· ·It could have been late November.· I don't
·4· remember precisely, but it was around December I recall.
·5· · · Q.· ·And then you discussed it with Zainulabeddin at
·6· around that time?
·7· · · A.· ·Correct.
·8· · · Q.· ·So that would be something like December of
·9· 2010 or January of 2011?
10· · · A.· ·In that time frame, yes.
11· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And do you remember the contents of your
12· discussion with her about the report?
13· · · A.· ·I do.· You know, one of the important things
14· about the report was that there's a statement in the
15· report that Dr. Schoenberg had reviewed the report with
16· Ms. Zainulabeddin, so I started that conversation with a
17· presumption that she knew what was in the report already
18· and so we went over -- rather than the whole report, we
19· went over the recommendations of the report, and I had
20· indicated that he had not recommended additional time
21· but had recommended a distraction free environment.
22· · · · · ·Ms. Zainulabeddin was at that time halfway
23· through her repetition of the first year of the
24· curriculum.· She was performing successfully at that
25· time and she said that she felt that she didn't need to
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 20 of 182 PageID 1237

A-1040
·1· do anything to react to that report because she was
·2· already doing well and so she did not take any action to
·3· request any accommodations at that time.· She did not
·4· contact student disability services to request any
·5· recommendation of accommodations.
·6· · · Q.· ·And did the action she took, was that in line
·7· with your recommendation?
·8· · · A.· ·I made no recommendation.· I gave her the
·9· recommendations of the report.· Like I said, she was
10· doing okay academically at that time and continued to do
11· so through the remainder of that academic year,
12· completed her repeat of the first year successfully.
13· · · Q.· ·And can you tell me a little bit about the
14· academic year or the structure of the program at that
15· time?· So if she was completing a year in January
16· approximately, when would that --
17· · · A.· ·No.· She was completing the year -- the year
18· was completed in second year, so it would have been
19· March.
20· · · Q.· ·Okay.· March.· March.· So you spoke to her --
21· · · A.· ·I'm sorry, first year.· No.· This was the first
22· year, so it would have been around late May, early June.
23· · · Q.· ·Well, let's go back a second.· So the academic
24· years in the medical school, when do they run from and
25· to, generally speaking?
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 21 of 182 PageID 1238

A-1041
·1· · · A.· ·Well, they've changed a little, shifted in time
·2· a little bit.· Typically early August is when the year
·3· starts and it -- the first year ends in early June.· The
·4· second year begins approximately one week before the
·5· first years would begin, so, again, right at the start
·6· of August, and then that actually runs until March.
·7· · · · · ·Do you want me to go beyond that or is that all
·8· you want?
·9· · · Q.· ·Oh, I see.· I see.· So when she was repeating
10· year one that would go until June?
11· · · A.· ·Right.
12· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Is that because the year one has courses
13· one through four and then the year two has courses five
14· through seven?
15· · · A.· ·That's -- yes.· That's part of it.· The other
16· part of it is because year one finishes the academic
17· year and the students have the summer off.· Year two
18· they finish the academic year and then they are going to
19· be studying for their first licensing exam, USMLE Step
20· 1, and so that's why it starts earlier, so that they can
21· then begin their clerkship year which at that time was
22· beginning in June.
23· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And can you describe just in a general
24· way what the students do in the clerkship year?
25· · · A.· ·In the clerkship year they rotate through
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 22 of 182 PageID 1239

A-1042
·1· different medical specialties.· There's a defined
·2· rotation.· They have five separate clerkships.· Some of
·3· them are eight weeks in length and some of them are 12
·4· weeks in length depending on the specialties involved
·5· and they spend a substantial amount of time in the
·6· clinics, substantial means anywhere from 40 to 80 hours
·7· a week, and then they also have to use their, quote,
·8· unquote, free time for studying, for looking up
·9· information about their patients and preparing for their
10· end of clerkship exams, so it's a very intense year.
11· · · · · ·Our curriculum is set up so that over the first
12· three years each succeeding year is a more challenging
13· curriculum.
14· · · Q.· ·Is that standard for medical school
15· curriculums?
16· · · A.· ·I think there is no such thing.· You know,
17· there's an old saying if you've seen 140 medical schools
18· you've seen 140 medical schools.
19· · · Q.· ·And do you know Michael -- Dr. Michael
20· Schoenberg?
21· · · A.· ·I know him a little bit.· You know, I've met
22· him on a couple of occasions at faculty events and I've
23· spoken to him on the phone a few times.
24· · · Q.· ·So he's a faculty member at the medical school?
25· · · A.· ·He is indeed.· He's a psychologist on staff in
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 23 of 182 PageID 1240

A-1043
·1· the department of psychiatry.
·2· · · Q.· ·And when he carried out the assessment, the
·3· neuropsychological evaluation of Ms. Zainulabeddin in
·4· 2010, did he do that as part of his activity as a
·5· faculty member at USF or did he do that in some other
·6· context?
·7· · · A.· ·He did it in the context of his clinical
·8· responsibilities.· We used a few different psychologists
·9· over the years that I was involved.
10· · · · · ·Primarily at that time we were using Dr.
11· Schoenberg because he was willing to provide the service
12· that the school was paying for at a reduced rate
13· compared to what private pay would have been.
14· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So when you say it was part of his
15· clinical responsibilities, his clinical responsibilities
16· are part of his --
17· · · A.· ·Faculty duties.
18· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Thank you.
19· · · · · ·And so was he carrying out -- to the extent
20· that multiple medical students were being evaluated in
21· this time, would it be correct to say that Dr.
22· Schoenberg was carrying out all or substantially all of
23· the examinations?
24· · · A.· ·Not all.· We have a program here, we refer to
25· it as the HELPS program.· It is a program designed to
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 24 of 182 PageID 1241

A-1044
·1· help students who have any kind of personal or
·2· psychological need for counseling.· It is conducted by a
·3· firm known as Gary Wood & Associates.· It's a local
·4· Tampa firm.· And so some of the students were referred
·5· to the psychologist for evaluation through Gary Wood &
·6· Associates and some of that depended on whether or not
·7· they had established a relationship using Gary Wood's
·8· practice through our HELPS program, and if they had not,
·9· then very often they would go to Michael.
10· · · Q.· ·So did you refer Ms. Zainulabeddin to Dr.
11· Schoenberg to conduct the evaluation?
12· · · A.· ·Correct.
13· · · Q.· ·And why did you do that?
14· · · A.· ·It was a recommendation of the APRC.
15· · · Q.· ·And why did the APRC make that recommendation?
16· · · A.· ·Dr. Alicia Monroe was the chair of the
17· committee.· She was also our vice dean for education.
18· Her experience at a previous institution led her to
19· believe that very often when students struggled
20· academically there might be some kind of
21· neuropsychological deficit and so she was the one that
22· really kind of initiated doing this on a somewhat
23· regular basis with students who were struggling
24· academically in the first year if there were no other
25· apparent reasons such as extenuating circumstance.
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 25 of 182 PageID 1242

A-1045
·1· · · · · ·Many students who struggle academically do so
·2· because something in life is going on and they can't
·3· focus on their school work.· This was a way of trying to
·4· make certain that we could provide all the help
·5· necessary to a student who needed help.
·6· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And so the medical school paid for the
·7· evaluation?
·8· · · A.· ·Testing, uh-huh.
·9· · · Q.· ·And was there a certain period of time where
10· the medical school was doing this, recommending
11· neuropsychological evaluations and paying for the
12· testing?
13· · · A.· ·Yes.
14· · · Q.· ·Okay.
15· · · A.· ·It started after Dr. Monroe became vice dean
16· and made this recommendation and it ceased before she
17· left for financial reasons.· You may have heard that
18· there was an economic downturn.
19· · · Q.· ·Yeah, I think I noticed that.· And
20· approximately when did she become vice dean?
21· · · A.· ·I want to say it was around 2008 or '09,
22· somewhere right in there.
23· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And did you ever discuss with Michael
24· Schoenberg the contents of his neuropsychological
25· evaluation of Zainulabeddin?
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 26 of 182 PageID 1243

A-1046
·1· · · A.· ·I did.
·2· · · Q.· ·Do you know approximately when that took place?
·3· · · A.· ·I believe it was right after I got the report.
·4· I discussed it with him just to get clarity on it and
·5· then I know we had a conversation again when that was
·6· later amended in I guess 2012.
·7· · · Q.· ·So the first discussion would have been
·8· approximately December of 2010?
·9· · · A.· ·Correct.
10· · · Q.· ·Did you discuss with him the issue that you
11· raised earlier, that his diagnosis seemed equivocal in a
12· sense because he hadn't recommended extra time on
13· testing?
14· · · A.· ·Correct.
15· · · Q.· ·Do you recall if he said anything additional
16· about that?
17· · · A.· ·At that time, no.
18· · · Q.· ·Did he indicate why he hadn't recommended
19· additional time on tests?
20· · · A.· ·Because the results of his testing, as I said,
21· were not a strong indicator of attention deficit, but
22· rather -- I believe the term he used is there is some
23· indication of -- I don't remember the exact word, you'd
24· have to look at the document, but he indicated some
25· concern about attention deficit, but the language he
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 27 of 182 PageID 1244

A-1047
·1· used did not give a strong indication that he was sure
·2· that that was a major issue.
·3· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And so you have a Ph.D., is that
·4· correct?
·5· · · A.· ·Correct, in microbiology and immunology.
·6· · · Q.· ·And so you're not a medical doctor?
·7· · · A.· ·I am not.
·8· · · Q.· ·Is it typical for you as, you know, a scientist
·9· with science degrees in sort of medical adjacent areas,
10· would it be typical for you to have a job placement in a
11· medical school?
12· · · A.· ·Yes.
13· · · Q.· ·Okay.
14· · · A.· ·You know, in the basic sciences, which are
15· taught mainly in the first two years, a large proportion
16· of the faculty are Ph.D.'s.
17· · · Q.· ·I will enter some exhibits.· So this one will
18· be Exhibit 2.
19· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 2 was marked for
20· identification.)
21· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· Let me know when you're ready.
22· · · A.· ·I'm ready.
23· · · Q.· ·Do you recognize this document, Dr. Specter?
24· · · A.· ·Absolutely.
25· · · Q.· ·What is it?
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 28 of 182 PageID 1245

A-1048
·1· · · A.· ·This is a typical letter of an APRC decision
·2· recommending actions to remediate a deficiency that
·3· would go to a student who had such deficiency.· In this
·4· case it's failing grades in two courses in the first
·5· year.
·6· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And it says here under three, "You are
·7· required to obtain a comprehensive assessment of your
·8· learning style as will be explained to you by Dr.
·9· Specter."· So is that -- is that the assessment that was
10· then carried out by Dr. Schoenberg?
11· · · A.· ·That's exactly correct.
12· · · Q.· ·And did you have a meeting with Zainulabeddin
13· at some time after this, and this is dated June 7, 2010?
14· Did you have a meeting with her to talk about the
15· comprehensive assessment of learning style?
16· · · A.· ·I had a meeting with her and I honestly can't
17· tell you if it was before or after she got this letter
18· for -- because very often after the meetings I would
19· meet with students before they got the letter and my
20· reason for doing that was students who went through
21· those meetings were very apprehensive about the results
22· of those meetings, so I would try to meet with students
23· as soon as possible to explain things to them, so I did
24· have a meeting around the time of this letter.
25· · · · · ·I did explain to her that this would be an
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 29 of 182 PageID 1246

A-1049
·1· assessment of her learning style to try and understand
·2· if she had any learning deficiencies and how she might
·3· best approach dealing with that.
·4· · · Q.· ·And do the students, when they're on the APRC
·5· agenda and they're reviewing student grades, are the
·6· students required to attend the meetings or are the
·7· students not there?
·8· · · A.· ·Typically students would not be present for an
·9· action, but if a student felt that the action was one
10· that should be appealed, then students did appear in
11· person to make their appeal.
12· · · · · ·Pretty much the only time the APRC asked a
13· student to appear initially was when it was a behavior
14· related issue.· This was not.
15· · · Q.· ·So it's unlikely that she would have attended
16· the meeting on June 3rd?
17· · · A.· ·Correct.
18· · · Q.· ·But you yourself, do you recall if you attended
19· the meeting?
20· · · A.· ·I did attend the meeting.
21· · · Q.· ·And did you -- did you play the role of, you
22· know, advocate for students who had deficiencies?
23· · · A.· ·Absolutely.
24· · · Q.· ·So what would that role entail in a case like
25· this?
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 30 of 182 PageID 1247

A-1050
·1· · · A.· ·In the case of Nausheen, one of the things that
·2· I made very clear to the committee was this was a
·3· student who was working to capacity.· In other words,
·4· her difficulties had nothing to do with lack of effort,
·5· that she was a genuine hard-working student, and that
·6· this may be an issue of capacity, but it was not an
·7· issue of hard work and so I advocated that she should be
·8· given a chance to repeat the year to correct any
·9· deficiencies in knowledge and the committee certainly
10· was receptive to going ahead and completing the year.
11· · · Q.· ·And had she previously -- Nausheen previously
12· spoken to you about the difficulties she was having in
13· this first year of medical school?
14· · · A.· ·I couldn't tell you on how many occasions, but
15· multiple occasions we talked as she was going through
16· because she had failed a number of exams as she went
17· through the first year and so we had multiple
18· conversations about how she could help herself, again,
19· as I mentioned earlier, it would be talking with course
20· directors, seeking tutors.
21· · · Q.· ·Do you recall if she discussed with you, raised
22· with you the idea of possibly withdrawing from Year I
23· because of her performance problems and reentering the
24· school at a later time?
25· · · A.· ·Right.· There was some discussion about that
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 31 of 182 PageID 1248

A-1051
·1· and I believe that my recommendation was that by staying
·2· in school she would be exposed to the material so that
·3· even if she had to repeat the year, which was becoming
·4· obvious, she would have the familiarity of having had
·5· the material and be better prepared to handle it the
·6· second time through because it was clear that she was
·7· having great difficulty with new information.
·8· · · Q.· ·And on this June 7th, 2010 APRC letter, item
·9· five, "You have been placed on academic probation," do
10· you know if this was the first time that Ms.
11· Zainulabeddin was placed on academic probation?
12· · · A.· ·I believe it was.
13· · · Q.· ·Is it your understanding that thereafter she
14· stayed on academic probation status throughout her
15· medical school career or do you think she was on and off
16· of that status?
17· · · A.· ·I believe she was off once.· In other words,
18· routine would be a student who had to repeat the year
19· would remain on probation until they successfully
20· completed the year.
21· · · · · ·She did successfully complete Year I, so she
22· would have come off probation.· When she got back into
23· academic difficulty in Year II, she would have been
24· placed back on academic probation.
25· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So she would have -- she would have
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 32 of 182 PageID 1249

A-1052
·1· gotten off academic probation in something like June
·2· 2011 as she completed --
·3· · · A.· ·That would be correct.
·4· · · Q.· ·Got it.
·5· · · A.· ·I'm going to beg your indulgence and ask for a
·6· short break.
·7· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· Sure.· That sounds great.
·8· · · · · (Recess from 9:53 a.m. until 9:59 a.m.)
·9· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· Do you recall that you're under
10· oath, Dr. Specter?
11· · · A.· ·I do.
12· · · Q.· ·So this I guess will be Exhibit 3.
13· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 3 was marked for
14· identification.)
15· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· Let me know when you're --
16· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
17· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So are you ready to answer questions on
18· this one?
19· · · A.· ·Yes.
20· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So this appears to be another letter to
21· Ms. Zainulabeddin from the Academic Performance Review
22· Committee, is that correct?
23· · · A.· ·That is correct.
24· · · Q.· ·And do you recall the events pertaining to this
25· letter?
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 33 of 182 PageID 1250

A-1053
·1· · · A.· ·Yes.· So this is after the completion of the
·2· first course of the second year, which at that time was
·3· called Medical Sciences I which is today course five
·4· that you alluded to, Ms. Zainulabeddin did not achieve a
·5· passing grade in that course.· The course director is
·6· Dr. Susan Pross which is why you see Dr. Pross's name
·7· here.
·8· · · · · ·The indication was that having failed that
·9· course she would be required to remediate it by
10· repeating that in the following summer.· And as you can
11· see here, this is an indication that says you've been
12· placed on academic warning, and that is your clearest
13· indication that in fact she had come off of probation.
14· And we use academic warning as an unofficial step so
15· that we don't have to put students on probation, which
16· is reportable on their documentation.· And warning is
17· kind of a be on warning that you have a problem, but it
18· does not go in the formal record that would go with the
19· student after they leave the school, and so that was the
20· circumstance here.
21· · · · · ·Dr. Donald Wheeler is one of our second year
22· faculty and he was her designated adviser to help her,
23· guide her, and I know you have documents showing some of
24· the meetings she had in Dr. Wheeler's reports to me
25· regarding those meetings.
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 34 of 182 PageID 1251

A-1054
·1· · · Q.· ·And so the arrangement here would be that she
·2· would attempt to complete --
·3· · · A.· ·The remainder of the year.
·4· · · Q.· ·-- Year II and then remediate Medical Sciences
·5· I?
·6· · · A.· ·Correct.
·7· · · Q.· ·And is that -- is that what wound up happening,
·8· do you recall?
·9· · · A.· ·No, it did not happen.· Actually, she went on
10· and failed Medical Sciences II and at that point in time
11· she came back before the APRC and I believe at that time
12· the recommendation of the committee was to dismiss her
13· from the school.
14· · · Q.· ·And do you think that there would be a written
15· -- a letter, an APRC letter about that dismissal?
16· · · A.· ·Absolutely, somewhere.
17· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· Ray, I don't think I've gotten that
18· · · one, so it's one to -- I don't know that it says
19· · · anything that we wouldn't easily predict that it
20· · · would say, but maybe --
21· · · · · ·MR. POOLE:· I'll go back and look because I
22· · · think I had records regarding the APRC, but I'll go
23· · · back and look at what we've got.· I thought we had
24· · · produced --
25· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· I've got seven or eight APRC
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 35 of 182 PageID 1252

A-1055
·1· · · letters, but I think there are more.
·2· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· My expectation would be that that
·3· · · letter probably would have been generated in January
·4· · · of 2012.
·5· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· Okay.
·6· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So you could look at that time
·7· · · frame.
·8· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· Look for January of 2012.
·9· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Because typically decisions on
10· · · Medical Sciences II would have been made right after
11· · · students came back from -- or the faculty came back
12· · · from winter break.
13· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· Okay.· So Medical Sciences II
14· which would later -- something similar to it would be
15· called course six, that would be -- that would be
16· finishing in December?
17· · · A.· ·Correct, right before winter break.
18· · · Q.· ·And then what -- in that earlier version of the
19· curriculum, was there Medical Sciences III?
20· · · A.· ·Correct.
21· · · Q.· ·That would be equivalent of course seven?
22· · · A.· ·Correct.
23· · · Q.· ·And that would be from January through March?
24· · · A.· ·Correct.
25· · · Q.· ·Okay.
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 36 of 182 PageID 1253

A-1056
·1· · · · · ·MR. POOLE:· So just to make sure I'm clear,
·2· · · because when I get back I'll look, this -- we're
·3· · · talking about what you believe would be a January
·4· · · 2012 letter from APRC to Ms. Zainulabeddin.
·5· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· That would be I think the first
·6· · · letter that would be dismissing her from the Morsani
·7· · · School of Medicine.
·8· · · · · ·MR. POOLE:· Okay.
·9· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· This will be Exhibit 4.
10· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 4 was marked for
11· identification.)
12· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.· So clearly this is the
13· · · follow-up to that dismissal and the appeal.
14· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· So here we see the APRC
15· underwent an appeal of a dismissal letter that I guess
16· resulted from the failure of Medical Sciences II and
17· voted to sustain the decision?
18· · · A.· ·Correct.
19· · · Q.· ·So when it says in the first sentence that it
20· met on February 2, 2012 to hear your appeal of the
21· decision, would your understanding be that Ms.
22· Zainulabeddin would have then attended that meeting?
23· · · A.· ·She would have attended that meeting.· She
24· would have made a presentation to the committee on her
25· reasons why she felt she should be reinstated.
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 37 of 182 PageID 1254

A-1057
·1· · · Q.· ·Can you recall, do you know if you attended
·2· that meeting?
·3· · · A.· ·I know I attended that meeting.
·4· · · Q.· ·Can you recall the content at all of Ms.
·5· Zainulabeddin's presentation?
·6· · · A.· ·It was related mainly to this disability and
·7· the fact that, you know, she did not have accommodations
·8· and, therefore, probably could perform adequately if
·9· given accommodations.
10· · · · · ·Now, I believe, and I don't remember the timing
11· as well, it may have been that by then she had gotten
12· her subsequent assessment that clearly gave her a
13· definition of ADHD and that was what the basis for this
14· was, so that was the strength of the basis of her
15· appeal.
16· · · Q.· ·Are you referring to a subsequent assessment
17· like the -- that led to an amendment of the evaluation
18· by Dr. Schoenberg or are you referring to one by
19· another --
20· · · A.· ·So there was an outside assessment that Ms.
21· Zainulabeddin had done and then after that outside
22· assessment she went back and met with Dr. Schoenberg and
23· then he sent his amended evaluation in and that's why
24· I'm not certain.
25· · · Q.· ·Okay.
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 38 of 182 PageID 1255

A-1058
·1· · · A.· ·It may have been that when she did this appeal
·2· she did not have that document yet, but when she
·3· appealed to the dean she may have had it by then and
·4· that -- because that may have been the new information
·5· that caused the dean's appeal to be successful.· I'm
·6· sorry, I don't remember the exact timing of those
·7· letters, but that should probably be dated on the
·8· letters.
·9· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Well, let's see.· I might be able to
10· help a little.· So this Exhibit 4, this is dated --
11· · · A.· ·I can --
12· · · Q.· ·-- February 7th.· Go ahead.
13· · · A.· ·I can tell you that there were a couple of
14· major concerns of the committee.· One of those major
15· concerns in listening to her appeal was the financial
16· commitment involved because there was a very strong
17· feeling amongst members of the committee that even if
18· she were allowed back in and repeated the second year a
19· second time she would be up against the maximum amount
20· of time allowed for completion of the educational
21· program which is six years.
22· · · · · ·And based on her performance of the first two
23· years, there was concern that she would not be able to
24· complete the third year in one year.· And between the
25· financial obligation that is created and the concern
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 39 of 182 PageID 1256

A-1059
·1· about academic success without being given a second
·2· chance for a third time that she would not be successful
·3· and that was a lot of the basis for that appeal being
·4· denied.
·5· · · Q.· ·So are we -- are we still talking about this
·6· appeal that happened in February of 2012?
·7· · · A.· ·Correct.
·8· · · Q.· ·You're not talking about the later appeal?
·9· · · A.· ·No, I'm not talking about the later appeal.
10· · · Q.· ·Okay.· But at this time she had -- she had
11· failed Year I, repeated and passed Year I, and she was
12· failing Year II?
13· · · A.· ·Correct.
14· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So the concern was that then if she then
15· passed Year II that there would be issues with how much
16· time she would have to complete?
17· · · A.· ·Right.
18· · · Q.· ·What's the maximum time to complete?
19· · · A.· ·Six years.
20· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And do you know what the -- what is the
21· basis of the maximum time to complete?
22· · · A.· ·I honestly can't tell you that.· I mean, it is
23· a rule that was established well before I was involved.
24· I think it's -- and I don't know if it's state mandated,
25· but it is -- I know it is standard throughout Florida
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 40 of 182 PageID 1257

A-1060
·1· medical schools and many medical schools and it really
·2· has to do with if you can't demonstrate your competence
·3· in that amount of time, then there's concerns about your
·4· competence.
·5· · · Q.· ·And so the program in total is three years or
·6· is it four years?
·7· · · A.· ·It is four years.
·8· · · Q.· ·It's four years.
·9· · · · · ·Okay.· So after clerkship year, which would be
10· Year III, can you tell about Year IV?· Is that another
11· even more rigorous year?
12· · · A.· ·No.· Year IV is the least rigorous year of
13· medical school.· It is focused on honing people in on
14· their specialty, so we actually have a track system, so
15· if you want to go into internal medicine you have to do
16· what's called an acting internship in internal medicine,
17· you do some other required courses that strengthen your
18· background generally in medicine and then you would take
19· electives.
20· · · · · ·And then the other part that is the major part
21· of the fourth year of medical school is application for
22· and interviews for residency, which, by the way, makes
23· the fourth year just as stress-inducing as the other
24· three years but for a very different reason.
25· · · Q.· ·So the concern about completion I guess would
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 41 of 182 PageID 1258

A-1061
·1· be --
·2· · · A.· ·The third year.
·3· · · Q.· ·-- the third year because if she had to do each
·4· of the previous years twice would she need to do the
·5· third year twice?· Was that the sort of idea?
·6· · · A.· ·That was the concern, yes.· And one of the
·7· major concerns for that is knowing the difficulty that
·8· Ms. Zainulabeddin had in studying and passing exams.
·9· · · · · ·In the third year there's far less time to
10· study because of all the clinical duties.· As I said,
11· there are some of our clerkships where students have
12· clinical responsibilities for almost 80 hours a week and
13· to find time to study on top of that makes that third
14· year a more challenging year than any other.
15· · · Q.· ·Let's see.· This will be by Exhibit 5.
16· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 5 was marked for
17· identification.)
18· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· So do you recognize this
19· document?
20· · · A.· ·I can honestly say I don't recall it, but, you
21· know, I certainly accept its legitimacy.
22· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So maybe you can help me understand how
23· this relates to the previous document.
24· · · · · ·So the previous document indicates that on
25· February 2nd the committee voted to sustain a decision
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 42 of 182 PageID 1259

A-1062
·1· to dismiss Ms. Zainulabeddin from the MD program for the
·2· reasons you just -- you just set out.
·3· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
·4· · · Q.· ·And then so here we see at the bottom of this
·5· e-mail -- well, we see that the subject of the e-mail
·6· that Zainulabeddin sent to you on February 5th is second
·7· appeal?
·8· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
·9· · · Q.· ·So she was planning to, you know, appeal the
10· dismissal a second time?
11· · · A.· ·Correct.· So the system is set up so that if a
12· student has an APRC action they can appeal to the APRC.
13· If that action involves dismissal, they may then appeal
14· to the dean.
15· · · Q.· ·Okay.
16· · · A.· ·And that's what this is in reference to, so the
17· second appeal is an appeal to the dean.
18· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So she wanted to get the results of the
19· neuropsychological exam to support an appeal to the dean
20· then?
21· · · A.· ·Correct.· And this -- the timing on this, by
22· the way, is a very good example of what I said to you
23· earlier because you can see her communication with me
24· was prior to her receiving the letter because after the
25· decision I talked with her about the decision and
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 43 of 182 PageID 1260

A-1063
·1· informed her about it.
·2· · · Q.· ·Right.· So you verbally let her know what
·3· happened and then -- and then she -- I guess you -- when
·4· you let her know what happened, would you have described
·5· these options like that she had the option of a second
·6· appeal?
·7· · · A.· ·Yes.· I also would have talked to her about
·8· these concerns that the committee had about the
·9· financial obligation and her ability to complete the
10· third year successfully, which -- which was something
11· that certainly bothered me, too.· I was worried for her
12· because probably through my years in student affairs my
13· biggest concern for all students was student debt.
14· · · Q.· ·So when you're speaking about the financial
15· obligation you're thinking about Zainulabeddin's accrual
16· of student debt?
17· · · A.· ·Accrual of student debt and then not completing
18· her degree and having to pay it back.
19· · · Q.· ·So in this e-mail it seems that she reminds you
20· of the -- that her evaluation was done by Dr.
21· Schoenberg?
22· · · A.· ·Correct.
23· · · Q.· ·So you would have checked on that because
24· Schoenberg did evaluations, but also I guess --
25· · · A.· ·Others did as well.
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 44 of 182 PageID 1261

A-1064
·1· · · Q.· ·-- because she had -- others did evaluations.
·2· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· Okay.· All right.· And then this
·3· · · will be Exhibit 6.
·4· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 6 was marked for
·5· identification.)
·6· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· Let me know when you're ready to
·7· answer questions about this.
·8· · · · · ·(Pause.)
·9· · · A.· ·Okay.
10· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So on the -- the first page indicates
11· that this is being sent to you, I guess, from the
12· registrar and then --
13· · · A.· ·Correct.
14· · · Q.· ·-- and then it seems like there's -- there's a
15· fax line, so it says, Sent on 1:32 P.M., Monday,
16· February 6.
17· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
18· · · Q.· ·It seems that the previous exhibit is dated --
19· · · A.· ·February 6th.
20· · · Q.· ·-- February 6th, so --
21· · · A.· ·So we responded immediately.
22· · · Q.· ·So would you say that you immediately sought a
23· copy of this?
24· · · A.· ·Yes.
25· · · Q.· ·And would it be standard for the registrar to
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 45 of 182 PageID 1262

A-1065
·1· maintain copies of these kind of documents?
·2· · · A.· ·Correct.· Well, they actually were maintained
·3· in the Office of Educational Affairs because -- and the
·4· reason for that was that when students had
·5· accommodations they were -- all of our exams are
·6· administered by Educational Affairs and, therefore, that
·7· office needed to know which students needed
·8· accommodations so they could make the arrangement for
·9· those accommodations, so I don't know if the registrar
10· also had a copy or just went to Educational Affairs,
11· which we're all part of anyway, so, I mean, it was just
12· going to another office to get the copy of the document.
13· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And for whatever reason this copy seems
14· to be missing a page I suppose because it starts with
15· recommendations and it says -- but it says page two of
16· six.
17· · · A.· ·Yeah.· My -- my expectation is that front page
18· is merely identifying information.
19· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And to the best of your knowledge, are
20· these the recommendations that you went over that you
21· discussed with Zainulabeddin in December --
22· · · A.· ·Correct.
23· · · Q.· ·-- December 2010 or January 2011?
24· · · A.· ·Correct.
25· · · Q.· ·And so we see 2.a., "This student is likely to
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 46 of 182 PageID 1263

A-1066
·1· benefit from taking tests in a distraction free
·2· environment."
·3· · · A.· ·Right.
·4· · · Q.· ·That was the recommendation you referred to?
·5· · · A.· ·It is.· And also if you look that -- the
·6· recommendations here are very clear in terms of why I
·7· said it was ambivalent or equivocal, because he
·8· recommends treatment for anxiety and depression, not for
·9· attention deficit, and that's why I said it was
10· equivocal.
11· · · · · ·He does mention here neurological deficits with
12· primarily attention difficulties, but he never uses the
13· diagnosis at all of attention deficit, either ADD or
14· ADHD, and that's why I use the term that it was
15· equivocal, it clearly from this language is, and also
16· the lack of extra time which would be a standard if
17· there was a diagnosis.
18· · · Q.· ·So how did you read the second sentence in two,
19· "The student should qualify for special education
20· services through the Americans with Disabilities Act and
21· Individuals with Disabilities Education Act."
22· · · A.· ·I interpret it as this is a student who should
23· go to student disability services and register for
24· accommodations which she did not do at this time.
25· · · Q.· ·So you told her that he had recommended that in
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 47 of 182 PageID 1264

A-1067
·1· December 2010, January 2011, but she didn't -- she
·2· didn't feel it was necessary at that time?
·3· · · A.· ·Correct.
·4· · · Q.· ·Did you talk with her about the recommendation
·5· of treatment for anxiety symptoms or depression, that
·6· aspect of this report?
·7· · · A.· ·I indicated that that was in the report, yes.
·8· · · Q.· ·Could the effects of anxiety, depression, could
·9· those lead to or somehow increase attention difficulties
10· in your understanding?
11· · · A.· ·I will not comment on that because I'm not
12· trained to comment on that.
13· · · Q.· ·That's fine.
14· · · A.· ·But I will say anxiety and depression can have
15· very negative effects on academic performance.· I won't
16· diagnose why, but clearly we see that happening.
17· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And do you know if after you spoke with
18· her in December of 2010, January of 2011 if
19· Zainulabeddin sought out some kind of treatment for
20· anxiety and depression?
21· · · A.· ·I do not know.
22· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So going back to February of 2006, so
23· you obtained another copy of this?
24· · · A.· ·I'm sorry, February of --
25· · · · · ·MR. POOLE:· You said 2006.
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 48 of 182 PageID 1265

A-1068
·1· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· Sorry.
·2· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· February 6 of 2012.
·3· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· I'm sorry, my fault.
·4· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Just clarity.
·5· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· My tongue was just jumbling things
·6· · · together.· So I suppose we can do this as Exhibit 7.
·7· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 7 was marked for
·8· identification.)
·9· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· So this is actually -- if you
10· compare it to Exhibit 5, you'll see this is about --
11· · · A.· ·A few hours later.
12· · · Q.· ·Yeah.· So it seems that in between times you've
13· obtained this copy from the -- from Wendy Steiger.
14· · · A.· ·Yep.· Wendy is our assistant.
15· · · Q.· ·And now you're making it available to
16· Zainulabeddin?
17· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
18· · · Q.· ·Okay.
19· · · A.· ·Incidentally, for clarity, this was the first
20· time she ever asked for a copy of it because I know at
21· one time she made a claim that we withheld it from her
22· and that's not an accurate statement.
23· · · · · ·It was not given to her simply because, A, she
24· didn't ask, and, B, as I said, in this document it says
25· that the information had been reviewed with her.· I made
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 49 of 182 PageID 1266

A-1069
·1· a presumption she knew what that information was so I
·2· didn't bother to make a copy because she didn't ask for
·3· one.
·4· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So you had had a copy obviously in
·5· December of 2010 --
·6· · · A.· ·2010.
·7· · · Q.· ·-- or January of 2011 and then -- so you hadn't
·8· made her a copy because she didn't ask you for one
·9· essentially?
10· · · A.· ·Correct.· I discussed it with her and, as I
11· said, she indicated she already had seen the info -- or
12· had discussed the information.
13· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you know what happened to that copy?
14· · · A.· ·That's what this is a copy of.
15· · · Q.· ·Oh, okay.
16· · · A.· ·In other words, I don't keep copies of those
17· documents.· I turn them over to the office that
18· administers the accommodations.
19· · · Q.· ·So you gave it to the Office of Educational
20· Affairs?
21· · · A.· ·Correct.
22· · · Q.· ·And they filed it and then when she asked for
23· it Wendy Steiger obtained it from whatever file?
24· · · A.· ·Correct.
25· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Great.· So this is Exhibit 8.
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 50 of 182 PageID 1267

A-1070
·1· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 8 was marked for
·2· identification.)
·3· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· So let me know when you're ready
·4· to talk about this one.
·5· · · A.· ·I think --
·6· · · Q.· ·So do you recognize this communication?
·7· · · A.· ·I vaguely recall it.· I mean --
·8· · · Q.· ·So in the e-mail that she sent to you Ms.
·9· Zainulabeddin says, "I wanted to apologize yesterday if
10· I said anything unintentionally.· I was a bit upset
11· about the situation since my dream I have worked all my
12· life for is on the line," etcetera.· Do you recall what
13· she was apologizing for?
14· · · A.· ·I couldn't tell you verbatim, but she was
15· apologizing because she was obviously very upset with
16· this news and said something along the lines of people
17· not helping her enough.
18· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And would you -- when you say she was
19· upset at the news, what --
20· · · A.· ·Well, I think she states it very perfectly
21· here.· She said, "I was a bit upset about the situation
22· since my dream I have worked all my life for is on the
23· line," and I can tell you having been with too many
24· students that were not able to successfully complete
25· medical school that this idea of seeing your dream die
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 51 of 182 PageID 1268

A-1071
·1· is a terrible feeling, so --
·2· · · Q.· ·Sure.
·3· · · A.· ·-- I was very comfortable with her being upset
·4· because I know that's the situation people get in and I
·5· take no offense at it.
·6· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So when you said that, you were just
·7· assuring her that you -- you weren't upset?
·8· · · A.· ·Right, because she was concerned that she made
·9· be angry and as you can see she indicates I've done more
10· than a little to help her through the years, so she
11· didn't want me to be upset with her.
12· · · Q.· ·Yeah.· So in this e-mail from her, it was sent
13· the morning of February 9th, and she says, "I wanted to
14· apologize yesterday if I said anything unintentionally."
15· · · · · ·Did you -- did you meet with her that previous
16· day, on February the 8th?
17· · · A.· ·Yes.
18· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So by that time it would seem she was
19· already planning for her second appeal to the level of
20· the dean of her dismissal?
21· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
22· · · Q.· ·So what -- do you remember what the content was
23· of your discussion on February the 8th?
24· · · A.· ·It was a very broad discussion.· It ranged from
25· what she would need to do to be successful in such an
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 52 of 182 PageID 1269

A-1072
·1· appeal and I always made it clear to students if they
·2· were going to appeal to the dean there needed to be some
·3· new information and for it to be successful would have
·4· to be compelling.
·5· · · · · ·I also discussed with her my concern that even
·6· if she was successful and had been reinstated that I had
·7· every expectation she would complete the second year
·8· successfully, but grave concern about her ability to
·9· complete the third year in one year, and so we had
10· talked about that and I think that's when she probably
11· made some comments that she felt might have upset me
12· because she didn't want to hear what I had to tell her
13· with regard to maybe this was the right time to take
14· stock and go in a different direction.
15· · · · · ·Typically with students who are not successful
16· in medical school but really want to stay in medicine, I
17· will talk to them about alternative careers such as
18· physician's assistant or nurse practitioner and she was
19· not in a state of mind to want to hear any of that, so I
20· think those were some of the things that when she made a
21· comment that she felt might have upset me.
22· · · Q.· ·Okay.
23· · · A.· ·My habit as a dean of students was never to
24· sugarcoat anything for students and -- but also to give
25· them other options they might have to try and be
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 53 of 182 PageID 1270

A-1073
·1· successful.
·2· · · Q.· ·So during the February 8th meeting you would
·3· have talked about the fact that it was an appropriate
·4· time to consider maybe voluntarily leaving medical
·5· school and pursuing some other kind of --
·6· · · A.· ·It was one of the options we discussed.· And
·7· like I said, I tried very hard never to be prescriptive
·8· to students, but rather to give them options and know
·9· that there's more than one way to be successful in life.
10· · · Q.· ·Did you talk about that 2010 neuropsychological
11· evaluation by Dr. Schoenberg on February 8th?
12· · · A.· ·I don't believe it was much of the discussion
13· then, but I honestly can't recall that we discussed
14· that.
15· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you know what she's referring to in
16· the second sentence after the "but" when she says, "I
17· acknowledge that it was an honest mistake and even
18· angels make mistakes"?
19· · · A.· ·I think she's talking to whatever comment she
20· made that she felt might have made to upset me.
21· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So this will be Exhibit 9.
22· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 9 was marked for
23· identification.)
24· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· Are you ready?
25· · · A.· ·Yes.· I know what this is in reference to, so
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 54 of 182 PageID 1271

A-1074
·1· this is a very unusual circumstance actually.
·2· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Yeah.· So I was -- I was going to ask I
·3· guess that -- I was going to say this February 21, 2012
·4· letter from the APRC doesn't seem to fit the model of
·5· what you were saying about a second appeal being to the
·6· level of the dean, so I was going to ask you why it came
·7· about that a second appeal was heard by the APRC
·8· instead.
·9· · · A.· ·This is when the information came in from the
10· psychologist and the second -- now, I'm not sure if it
11· was only the independent psychologist or if Dr.
12· Schoenberg's second amended letter came in as well.· We
13· would have to look at the dates on those, but I know
14· it's when the new report came in and the psych eval that
15· there was ADHD.
16· · · Q.· ·Okay.
17· · · A.· ·Okay?· And based on that new information, and I
18· feel quite certain that I was the one that raised this
19· and asked that it be reconsidered, that the committee
20· did, in fact, reconsider and, as you can see, they
21· reinstated her.
22· · · Q.· ·So you would say that the new info, the new
23· information would be basically the fact of a definitive
24· ADHD diagnosis?
25· · · A.· ·Correct.
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 55 of 182 PageID 1272

A-1075
·1· · · Q.· ·And your understanding is it's a definitive
·2· ADHD diagnosis by an outside practitioner?
·3· · · A.· ·Correct.· And then an amended diagnosis also
·4· which was ADHD from Dr. Schoenberg.
·5· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So your sense is that most likely those
·6· were both being reviewed?
·7· · · A.· ·Most likely, but like I said, I'm not certain
·8· of the timing of it, but at least the outside one was
·9· and maybe Dr. Schoenberg's as well.· Like I said, the
10· dating on the documents would tell you that.
11· · · Q.· ·So at least the outside evaluator's report.
12· · · · · ·Okay.· Do you recall, by any chance, who the
13· outside evaluator was?
14· · · A.· ·No.
15· · · Q.· ·Well, I can certainly look into that.
16· · · A.· ·That letter should be in the file -- or that
17· evaluation should be in the file.
18· · · Q.· ·Sure.· Sure.· So you -- did you indicate that
19· you had recommended this outcome to the APRC?
20· · · A.· ·That they reinstate her?
21· · · Q.· ·Yeah.
22· · · A.· ·I was supportive of it.· I don't know that I
23· made a formal recommendation.· I think that came from
24· Dr. Monroe actually.
25· · · Q.· ·Okay.
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 56 of 182 PageID 1273

A-1076
·1· · · A.· ·But Dr. Monroe and I had discussed it once we
·2· had these results and I believe she was responsible for
·3· calling a special meeting of the APRC to discuss this.
·4· · · Q.· ·So you discussed it with Dr. Alicia Monroe I
·5· guess prior to the APRC meeting on February 16th?
·6· · · A.· ·Correct.
·7· · · Q.· ·But after the meeting with Nausheen on the 8th?
·8· · · A.· ·Correct, so somewhere in that week.
·9· · · Q.· ·And then based on that conversation Dr. Monroe
10· made a proposal for readmission?
11· · · A.· ·Correct.
12· · · Q.· ·And you didn't necessarily endorse that, but
13· you --
14· · · A.· ·I did endorse it.
15· · · Q.· ·You endorsed it.· You supported it in your role
16· as student advocate?
17· · · A.· ·You have to remember, you know, with all the
18· doubts that I had I had invested six years of trying to
19· help this young lady be successful and I'm not one to
20· give up easily on most anything.
21· · · Q.· ·In a case where you -- well, I guess let me ask
22· a better question.
23· · · · · ·So to what extent would your dealing with the
24· APRC around this would it be driven by your role as the
25· student advocate?
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 57 of 182 PageID 1274

A-1077
·1· · · A.· ·A hundred percent.
·2· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So does that mean that you would
·3· advocate based on the student's stated desires even if
·4· you had some level of doubts about whether that was the
·5· right thing for them?
·6· · · A.· ·Not always, because my role had a conflict of
·7· interest and that conflict of interest was I was an
·8· advocate for the students, not a student, and so I had
·9· to look at it from the perspective of the whole student
10· body and the individual and try to do what was best in
11· terms of everybody.
12· · · · · ·In this particular case, it was, in my opinion,
13· something -- to give her another chance was something I
14· could advocate for.
15· · · Q.· ·So here, number eight, this readmission places
16· Zainulabeddin on academic probation again?
17· · · A.· ·Correct.
18· · · Q.· ·Would that be standard when a student's
19· readmitted?
20· · · A.· ·It is -- yes, it is standard because obviously
21· that student had left with some deficit, so it's really
22· more standard because of the deficit rather than just
23· the readmission, but it's in direct reference to why she
24· would have initially been placed on academic probation.
25· · · Q.· ·And there's no -- there's no direct reference
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 58 of 182 PageID 1275

A-1078
·1· here to disability or ADHD.
·2· · · A.· ·There was not.· Well, there is -- there's an
·3· obtuse reference.· Where it says that due to new
·4· information made available to the committee, that is the
·5· new information.
·6· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So is there a particular reason that
·7· you're aware of why the issue of disability wouldn't be
·8· raised directly in this sort of document?
·9· · · A.· ·I can't answer that since I didn't craft the
10· language and I'm not sure if somebody was being coy or
11· just chose to be general.· It could be any reason.
12· · · · · ·I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask for
13· another quick break.
14· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· Sure, that's no problem.
15· · · · ·(Recess from 10:41 a.m. until 10:45 a.m.)
16· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· Do you recall that you're under
17· oath, Dr. Specter?
18· · · A.· ·I do.
19· · · Q.· ·Great.· So you were saying that this February
20· 21st letter that you're not involved in drafting these
21· APRC letters?
22· · · A.· ·I usually see them after they've been drafted
23· before they get submitted.
24· · · Q.· ·So in this case I guess it would have been
25· drafted by Dr. Monroe or by someone on her behalf?
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 59 of 182 PageID 1276

A-1079
·1· · · A.· ·Pretty much most of these letters get -- the
·2· first draft is done by the registrar who sits in as the
·3· official record taker in the meetings.
·4· · · Q.· ·Okay.· I see.· And then the letter lists the
·5· stipulations, so I guess the registrar writes them down
·6· as they're --
·7· · · A.· ·Yes.
·8· · · Q.· ·I see.· So one of the stipulations is that,
·9· number four, "You must meet with the associate dean for
10· student affairs to discuss this deficiency and
11· mechanisms for academic improvement."
12· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
13· · · Q.· ·So from your perspective, does that mean she
14· was required to have one meeting with you or you were
15· going to have a series of meetings with her?
16· · · A.· ·She was required to have one meeting, but as I
17· said, we're six years into a relationship and I was
18· always available to Nausheen as I would have been
19· available to any student who wanted to come see me.
20· · · · · ·One of the things I will point out to you that
21· has absolutely nothing to do with this, but you can see
22· there's candy on my desk and that was there for a
23· particular reason, and that reason was that students
24· could come in and take candy anytime they wanted so that
25· when they came in at a time like this, when they were
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 60 of 182 PageID 1277

A-1080
·1· under duress, it was not a foreign place, but a
·2· comfortable place to come.
·3· · · Q.· ·So I guess in number one where it says that the
·4· class of 2015 would begin Year II on July 23, 2015 --
·5· · · A.· ·2012.
·6· · · Q.· ·Sorry, July 23, 2012, that was what you were
·7· referring to earlier about how Year II began a little
·8· earlier than --
·9· · · A.· ·Correct.
10· · · Q.· ·-- the beginning of August?
11· · · · · ·Okay.· So when it says here that she was placed
12· on a leave of absence from February 16, 2012 to June 22,
13· 2012, what then would she be doing during the period
14· from June 22, 2012 to July 23, 2012?· Is that just a
15· break?
16· · · A.· ·Correct.
17· · · Q.· ·Okay.
18· · · A.· ·That would be the normal student break anyway
19· and, therefore, they didn't have to give her any special
20· dispensation.
21· · · · · ·A lot of that language has to do with the
22· federal loans and when a student is in school and not in
23· school, etcetera.
24· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And when it says, "You will be permitted
25· to audit Year II courses during your leave of absence,"
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 61 of 182 PageID 1278

A-1081
·1· is that similar to your rationale that she should finish
·2· out Year I the first time?
·3· · · A.· ·Exactly, that she get exposed to the course
·4· material so that she was more familiar with it and could
·5· succeed more easily.
·6· · · Q.· ·And do you know if she did do that and audited
·7· those courses during her time off?
·8· · · A.· ·So I know she did some of that.· I don't know
·9· if she did every lecture like she was enrolled or if she
10· was selective, but I know she did some of the auditing.
11· I don't know how extensively.
12· · · Q.· ·And what's the -- in number seven, what's the
13· Kaplan Classroom Anywhere course?
14· · · A.· ·Kaplan, you're familiar with the Kaplan
15· courses?
16· · · Q.· ·Uh-huh.
17· · · A.· ·So they have online courses and that's what
18· they call it, Kaplan Anywhere, so -- because you can do
19· it online anywhere.
20· · · Q.· ·And are these like -- are these courses for --
21· that cover some of the same topics as medical school
22· courses?
23· · · A.· ·They're very often more based on technique than
24· they are content, so it really is evolution of study
25· skills and learning stills.
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 62 of 182 PageID 1279

A-1082
·1· · · Q.· ·Okay.
·2· · · A.· ·And if you just back up to number six, Dr.
·3· Maher and Mr. Tetrault, both who are educational
·4· specialists who help students with those skills and
·5· that's why the reference is to them.
·6· · · Q.· ·Okay.· What about the concerns that had caused
·7· the committee to sustain its decision previously on the
·8· -- on the 7th or -- I guess on the 2nd of February?· So
·9· on the 2nd of February they had sustained the dismissal
10· decision because of the concerns about completion, so
11· how do those concerns play into this readmission
12· decision on the 21st of February?
13· · · A.· ·Everybody knew those concerns were still there,
14· but in light of the new information people felt that Ms.
15· Zainulabeddin deserved the opportunity to be able to
16· take her coursework with accommodations because they had
17· not been granted to her previously, not because anybody
18· denied those, but because they weren't well documented
19· and because she had not applied for those
20· accommodations.
21· · · Q.· ·Right.· So can I ask you some general questions
22· about the coursework for Year II?
23· · · A.· ·So what happens if I say no?· Of course you
24· can.
25· · · Q.· ·So she -- so she did go on to repeat Year II
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 63 of 182 PageID 1280

A-1083
·1· beginning July 23, 2012?
·2· · · A.· ·Correct.
·3· · · Q.· ·And it had changed somewhat, at least the
·4· programs that had been called Medical Science I, II, III
·5· were now called Course 5, Course 6, Course 7?
·6· · · A.· ·Yes, right.
·7· · · Q.· ·So can you describe what the -- what the major
·8· parts of the content for that year were?
·9· · · A.· ·So for those courses, the three major areas of
10· content are pharmacology, microbiology and immunology
11· and pathology.· Those are blended in integrated sections
12· that are organ system based and they also weave in some
13· of the clinically related information so that the
14· students are getting information in the context of the
15· human and disease.
16· · · Q.· ·So while those three courses -- do you think of
17· them as quarters?
18· · · A.· ·No, just courses.
19· · · Q.· ·Just courses.
20· · · A.· ·The medical school is sort of different, so, I
21· mean, the whole concept of semesters or quarters doesn't
22· really exist here.
23· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So those courses then, they're not the
24· only aspect because they're also the other courses,
25· right?
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 64 of 182 PageID 1281

A-1084
·1· · · A.· ·Right.· So you have --
·2· · · Q.· ·The doctoring --
·3· · · A.· ·The doctoring course and you have the -- you
·4· have the evidence-based clinical reasoning course
·5· ongoing at that time and I'm not sure if clinical
·6· problem solving had been incorporated into doctoring by
·7· that year or not, but that was part of the educational
·8· program, too.
·9· · · Q.· ·And so those are -- would you say those are
10· pretty much independent from Course 5, Course 6, Course
11· 7?
12· · · A.· ·They are.
13· · · Q.· ·And so Zainulabeddin, is it your understanding
14· that on her second attempt to do Year II that she passed
15· Course 5, Course 6, and Course 7?
16· · · A.· ·She did.
17· · · Q.· ·So in your understanding, what are the elements
18· of that Year II that she did not pass the second time
19· around?
20· · · A.· ·She had difficulty with the physical diagnosis
21· part of the doctoring course and she had difficulty with
22· the evidence-based clinical reasoning, and those were
23· the elements that resulted in her ultimately being
24· dismissed.
25· · · Q.· ·I guess I'll enter this as -- I'll enter this
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 65 of 182 PageID 1282

A-1085
·1· as Exhibit 10.· This is a syllabus.
·2· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 10 was marked for
·3· identification.)
·4· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.· So in this case the
·5· · · clinical problem solving was part of this course.
·6· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· Okay.· So would this be the
·7· syllabus for the evidence-based clinical reasoning in
·8· Year II?
·9· · · A.· ·Correct.
10· · · Q.· ·In the year that Zainulabeddin retook Year II?
11· · · A.· ·So this is the syllabus for the course that was
12· given to students in that year.· There was a
13· modification made for Ms. Zainulabeddin.· Because she
14· had already done the clinical problem solving part of
15· the course, rather than have her redo something she had
16· completed successfully, in lieu of that she was given a
17· separate assignment which was, in essence, to prepare
18· one of these cases and that was standard for students
19· who had to repeat this course.
20· · · Q.· ·And so Evidence-Based Clinical Reasoning I,
21· that's part of the Year I med school curriculum?
22· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
23· · · Q.· ·Just like Doctoring I is part of the Year I
24· curriculum?
25· · · A.· ·Correct.
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 66 of 182 PageID 1283

A-1086
·1· · · Q.· ·And then Doctoring II is part of the Year II
·2· curriculum?
·3· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
·4· · · Q.· ·So if we turn to the third page of the syllabus
·5· it talks about two parts to EBCR to evidence-based
·6· clinical reasoning?
·7· · · A.· ·Right.
·8· · · Q.· ·And one -- the second part you referred to
·9· you've already discussed somewhat, the clinical problem
10· solving?
11· · · A.· ·Correct.
12· · · Q.· ·And you weren't sure if whether at this time
13· this was part of this or something else, right?
14· · · A.· ·I didn't recall.· It used to be an independent
15· course, then they folded it into this, then ultimately
16· all of this has been folded into doctoring.
17· · · Q.· ·Including the evidence-based medicine part is
18· folded into doctoring?
19· · · A.· ·I believe that is all just one big course now.
20· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And then so the evidence-based medicine
21· test would normally be taken at the end of Course 6.
22· · · · · ·Did Zainulabeddin take the course at the same
23· time as her classmates?· I mean, did she take the
24· evidence-based medicine test at the same time as her
25· classmates?
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 67 of 182 PageID 1284

A-1087
·1· · · A.· ·I don't believe she did.· I believe I recall
·2· seeing an excused absence.· She made a request to delay
·3· that exam because of some circumstance in her life.
·4· · · · · ·I will say Ms. Zainulabeddin requested delay in
·5· exams more than any student in my 13 years and she
·6· always had something that happened, so I don't remember
·7· what it was in this particular case, but there were
·8· multiple deaths in her family, problems with cars, a
·9· variety of circumstances that caused her to delay exams.
10· · · Q.· ·Would you say that this was primarily in that
11· 2012-2013 academic year or was this something --
12· · · A.· ·Yes.· It was more so in that year than any
13· other year.
14· · · Q.· ·Did you find it disappointing that she was
15· frequently delaying the tests during that year?
16· · · A.· ·Yes.· I believe somewhere there's a document
17· when I commented to her about that, that I was concerned
18· that she was consistently doing this, and that concern
19· was expressed because at APRC faculty had commented that
20· this was an unusual thing and maybe was something she
21· was doing to seek advantage over some of her peers who
22· were taking the exam on time.
23· · · Q.· ·How would -- how would it be advantageous to
24· delay the exam?
25· · · A.· ·Extra time to study.
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 68 of 182 PageID 1285

A-1088
·1· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So for this evidence-based clinical
·2· reasoning course, is it your understanding that
·3· Zainulabeddin, that she failed both parts of this course
·4· or that she just failed the evidence-based medicine
·5· test?
·6· · · A.· ·I don't know what the review of her write-up
·7· was for the clinical problem solving case that she
·8· created, so I can't comment on that.· I know that the
·9· evidence-based medicine part was what she had to
10· remediate.
11· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So do you know roughly speaking when the
12· APRC decided to dismiss Zainulabeddin for a second time?
13· · · A.· ·It was in March.· I believe the APRC letter
14· might be dated the -- or the letter from Dr. Monroe is
15· in March, late March sometime, mid to late March.
16· · · Q.· ·Okay.
17· · · A.· ·I can tell you that that dismissal letter was
18· prior to her successful remediation of the
19· evidence-based medicine exam and the reason she was even
20· allowed to take that exam was because when a student
21· appeals any decision they're allowed to continue in the
22· curriculum until that appeal is resolved.
23· · · Q.· ·So based on that policy, is it relatively
24· common for students to be appealing a dismissal and
25· simultaneously doing remediation?
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 69 of 182 PageID 1286

A-1089
·1· · · A.· ·It's more common for them to be continuing
·2· coursework because it's a rare occurrence that it might
·3· be at the end of the year like that, but, yes, to
·4· continue on doing something, remediation or continuing
·5· academic work.
·6· · · Q.· ·So ultimately is it your understanding that
·7· Zainulabeddin completed her remediation successfully for
·8· the doctoring and the evidence-based medicine?
·9· · · A.· ·Correct.
10· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And so ultimately in a sense she -- or
11· she did get credit, I guess, for completing Year II of
12· medical school then?
13· · · A.· ·Correct.
14· · · Q.· ·Okay.· But the dismissal had been prior to her
15· completion of the remediation?
16· · · A.· ·Correct.
17· · · Q.· ·And so when the appeal was rejected, she was
18· still dismissed even though she had completed Year II,
19· she was still dismissed based on --
20· · · A.· ·Overall weak academic performance.
21· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So was the -- do you know if the
22· successful remediation was taken into account in looking
23· at her appeal?
24· · · A.· ·Yes.
25· · · Q.· ·And how did the -- how did the successful
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 70 of 182 PageID 1287

A-1090
·1· remediation play into the consideration to the best of
·2· your recollection?
·3· · · A.· ·My guess is it had little to no bearing and
·4· this went back to the idea of when she was reinstated
·5· the prior year, from that dismissal there's a very
·6· distinct statement saying any further deficiencies might
·7· result in action by the APRC and that's really what was
·8· happening here.
·9· · · · · ·At this point in time seeing that despite the
10· fact that she repeated the year and there wasn't new
11· information that she was getting that she still
12· struggled academically, this resurfaced all of those
13· concerns about being able to successfully complete the
14· third year in one year.
15· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So I guess we can do this as Exhibit 11.
16· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 11 was marked for
17· identification.)
18· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· This is the next -- this is the
19· next APRC letter that -- that I have, though.
20· · · A.· ·Right.· So this was after the appeal to the
21· APRC, so as I said, I believe that the -- oh, here it
22· says March 14th was the decision, so I was accurate in
23· that.
24· · · Q.· ·So your understanding is that there would be
25· probably a March APRC letter as well that would --
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 71 of 182 PageID 1288

A-1091
·1· · · A.· ·Yeah.· It would have been after the 14th, so
·2· within a few days of the 14th would have been when that
·3· letter was dated.
·4· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· So, Ray, that's another one that I
·5· · · don't think I have, so when you're looking for the
·6· · · other one --
·7· · · · · ·MR. POOLE:· Got it.
·8· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· I think there's a pending request
·9· · · that you're going to respond to soon which is for
10· · · the APRC files.
11· · · · · ·MR. POOLE:· Yeah.· Yeah.
12· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· It's probably all in there.
13· · · · · ·MR. POOLE:· Yeah.
14· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· So if it's all in there, no worries.
15· · · · · ·MR. POOLE:· Yeah.· That's probably why to the
16· · · extent you don't have it why not.
17· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· Right.
18· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· So the third sentence gives -- I
19· guess would you say that these are the reasons for
20· upholding the dismissal in the third sentence?
21· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
22· · · Q.· ·So significant gaps in your knowledge, clinical
23· performance, clinical reasoning, physical exam skills,
24· self-directed learning skills, data-gathering skills,
25· and ability to logically follow steps and follow
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 72 of 182 PageID 1289

A-1092
·1· instructions.
·2· · · A.· ·And I believe the next sentence is a reference
·3· to what we've already discussed, the additional
·4· information presented would mean that she successfully
·5· remediated the coursework.
·6· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So this sort of list of concerns -- I
·7· mean, there's seven concerns.· Are these all really
·8· critical concerns?
·9· · · A.· ·For treatment of patients, you bet.
10· · · Q.· ·Do some of these things seem like they relate
11· to the disability to ADHD?· I'm thinking ability to
12· logically interpret steps and follow instructions,
13· self-directed learning skills.
14· · · A.· ·One would have to speculate if one were to say
15· anything about that.· I mean, there could be a variety
16· of different reasons.· I mean, clearly not gaps in
17· knowledge.· For any of the others it would be
18· speculation.
19· · · Q.· ·So ultimately is the decision to uphold the
20· dismissal, is it based on the fact of failing these
21· earlier courses or is it something more wholistic?
22· · · A.· ·It's -- it is directly related to being on
23· probation and failing courses.
24· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So if you're on probation and you fail a
25· course, then dismissal is a likely outcome?
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 73 of 182 PageID 1290

A-1093
·1· · · A.· ·If you're on probation and you fail a course it
·2· would be a reason for strong consideration for
·3· dismissal.· And the reason I phrase it that way is
·4· again, every individual situation will be examined on
·5· the merit of the situation, and so in this particular
·6· case, it wasn't she was on probation and failed a
·7· course.· It was she was on probation after failing a
·8· course and repeating two years of the curriculum, so it
·9· was pretty extensive in coming to that decision.
10· · · · · ·And I can tell you, you know, I was dean of
11· students for 13 years, and I don't know the exact
12· number, but I would say APRC decisions to dismiss
13· students from the school was less than 10, so this was
14· not something the committee did easily or joyfully.
15· This was a very, very hard decision for the committee to
16· make.
17· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And based on your interactions with
18· Ms. Zainulabeddin, did you find that she demonstrated
19· behaviors that would be consistent with diagnosis of
20· ADHD?
21· · · A.· ·Yes.
22· · · Q.· ·What kind of behavior would those be?
23· · · A.· ·Frequently we met as I've discussed and there
24· were several occasions where she would come away from
25· those meetings and she would come back, clearly her
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 74 of 182 PageID 1291

A-1094
·1· recollections were very selective as if she wasn't
·2· focused throughout the meeting and she remembered what
·3· sounded good to her, but didn't necessarily take the
·4· whole discussion into context.
·5· · · Q.· ·So that maybe she wasn't processing all the
·6· information?· Something like that?
·7· · · A.· ·In many cases.
·8· · · Q.· ·Did you -- on a personal level, did you believe
·9· her to have an ADHD, attention deficit condition?
10· · · A.· ·I need you to clarify your question for me as
11· to at what time and if you're asking whether I believed
12· her or whether I believed the documentation.
13· · · Q.· ·Fair enough.· Okay.· So when you spoke to her
14· in December of 2010 or January of 2011, did you think
15· that it was likely at that time that she had an
16· attention deficit condition?
17· · · A.· ·I will say I thought it was a possibility.
18· What is disappointing in all of this is that she knew at
19· that time.
20· · · · · ·It was very clear in the amended report that
21· Dr. Schoenberg did that she withheld that information.
22· He specifically states that in his report, that she
23· withheld information from him which is what colored his
24· diagnosis.· And so, you know, I have -- you know, all of
25· my psychological training is freshman psych and
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 75 of 182 PageID 1292

A-1095
·1· parenting for 30 some years, okay, so I make no expert
·2· judgments because I have no expertise.· And so did I
·3· have a feeling that this was possible?· Yes.· Did I know
·4· it was likely?· I didn't, because I didn't have any
·5· facts to back it up.
·6· · · Q.· ·So --
·7· · · A.· ·And I was not made aware until 2012 that she
·8· had had -- known some of this earlier in her life, and I
·9· believe as I've heard it from other students as well,
10· that she withheld it because she thought there would be
11· some bias against her if she revealed it.
12· · · Q.· ·So after February 2012 when you got the new
13· information that's -- after that point basically you
14· would have believed that she had ADHD based on the
15· documents?
16· · · A.· ·Right.· It's sort of like confirmed that this
17· makes sense.
18· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And do you know if she received
19· accommodations for ADHD in her second time through --
20· · · A.· ·Yes.
21· · · Q.· ·-- Year II?
22· · · A.· ·Her request for accommodations was made in
23· either late February or March of 2012.· There's a letter
24· and I believe it is dated March 23rd, 2012 from our
25· Student Disability Services to the medical school
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 76 of 182 PageID 1293

A-1096
·1· indicating what accommodations were appropriate.· Those
·2· were filed and she was given those accommodations for
·3· all exams for which she wanted accommodation.
·4· · · · · ·I don't know if there were any exams where she
·5· chose not to do that, but I know if -- you know, she was
·6· offered those accommodations for every written exam she
·7· took in the medical school in that repeat of second
·8· year.
·9· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So thinking about I guess March of 2013
10· and the protocol you described earlier, so let's see how
11· this would have worked.
12· · · · · ·So the first thing that would have happened in
13· terms of the APRC would be that the registrar sometime
14· after March 14th of 2013, I guess the registrar would
15· put Nausheen's name on a list of students to be reviewed
16· by APRC?
17· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
18· · · Q.· ·Is that right?
19· · · A.· ·(Witness nodding head.)
20· · · Q.· ·Can you answer audibly?
21· · · A.· ·Oh, I'm sorry.
22· · · Q.· ·Sorry, just for Lisa's benefit?
23· · · A.· ·I was thinking because of the -- I'm not sure
24· your date is correct, but in March of 2013 when grades
25· were recorded the registrar would have added Nausheen's
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 77 of 182 PageID 1294

A-1097
·1· name to the APRC roster for consideration of her
·2· deficiency.
·3· · · Q.· ·And is it your understanding that she had two U
·4· grades at that time?
·5· · · A.· ·Correct.
·6· · · Q.· ·In Doctoring II and Evidence-Based Clinical
·7· Reasoning II?
·8· · · A.· ·Correct.
·9· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And are those -- are those grades given
10· on the basis of the entire year?· Is that how it works?
11· · · A.· ·Yes.
12· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And so then am I right that then the
13· next thing is the course directors would make
14· recommendation to APRC?
15· · · A.· ·The course directors would make a
16· recommendation to APRC based on their course alone.
17· · · Q.· ·Okay.
18· · · A.· ·And then given those data, the APRC would
19· consider those within the context of the student's
20· academic record to that point in time.
21· · · Q.· ·Okay.
22· · · A.· ·I'm sorry.· I just want to make it clear, no
23· course director ever recommends dismissal of a student
24· on academic grounds.
25· · · Q.· ·Good.· So they'd make a -- each course director
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 78 of 182 PageID 1295

A-1098
·1· makes a recommendation just based on how the student
·2· performed in that course?
·3· · · A.· ·Right.
·4· · · Q.· ·And did you -- are you aware of what the -- do
·5· you know what the recommendations were that were made by
·6· the course directors for evidence-based clinical
·7· reasoning and for doctoring about Ms. Zainulabeddin?
·8· · · A.· ·Yes.· Both of those were recommendations to
·9· remediate the course.
10· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And when we're talking about the course
11· directors, do you know which course director in each
12· case made the recommendations or do they make them in
13· tandem?
14· · · A.· ·No.· They would have done it individually.
15· · · Q.· ·Okay.
16· · · A.· ·It would have been Dr. Kumar for Evidence-Based
17· Clinical Reasoning II and Dr. Joanne Valeriano-Marcet
18· for Physical Diagnosis.
19· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So the APRC got the recommendations to
20· allow remediation and then what did the APRC decide to
21· do?
22· · · A.· ·At that time the APRC said we have two
23· deficiencies in a student who is on probation.· While
24· all courses were passed, they weren't passed in a
25· stellar manner for a repeat and there was general
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 79 of 182 PageID 1296

A-1099
·1· concerns as you saw documented in the letter and they
·2· made the recommendation to dismiss her.
·3· · · Q.· ·And when you say the courses, you're referring
·4· to Course 5, Course 6, Course 7?
·5· · · A.· ·Correct.
·6· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And then how did it come about that --
·7· that then she began the remediation?· Was that just
·8· because she appealed?
·9· · · A.· ·Correct.
10· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So that was the equivalent of a student
11· continuing to do coursework?
12· · · A.· ·Correct.
13· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So do you recall what Ms.
14· Zainulabeddin's grade in Course 5, Course 6, and Course
15· 7 the second time through, what they were approximately?
16· · · A.· ·So our grading system at that time was
17· pass/fail, so they were pass, but they were -- I mean,
18· if you're asking relatively how she did.
19· · · Q.· ·Uh-huh.
20· · · A.· ·They were below class average in every course.
21· · · Q.· ·Okay.· I think I recall seeing them in the --
22· sort of the seventy --
23· · · A.· ·Correct.
24· · · Q.· ·-- between the 70 and 80 percent range?
25· · · A.· ·Correct.· It is fairly typical for course
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 80 of 182 PageID 1297

A-1100
·1· averages to be in the 80s.
·2· · · Q.· ·Actually, this might help a little.· Exhibit
·3· 12.
·4· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 12 was marked for
·5· identification.)
·6· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· So this seems to be the grade in
·7· Course 7.
·8· · · A.· ·Correct.
·9· · · Q.· ·So you would say that 75 percent as an
10· examination average for Course 7 would probably be below
11· average?
12· · · A.· ·My guess would be it would be more than one
13· standard deviation below the mean for the course.
14· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And so the average would be something in
15· the range of 80 percent?
16· · · A.· ·More like 82 to 85 is typical, although I don't
17· know for that particular year, that particular course.
18· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So the APRC expected to see -- wanted to
19· see better than -- wanted to see at least average
20· performance from repeat students like relative to peers?
21· · · A.· ·The APRC, I don't think they had a specific
22· standard in mind, but they would like to have a good
23· sense that a student had more than minimal knowledge
24· having taken the material twice.
25· · · Q.· ·And how significant was the -- how significant
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 81 of 182 PageID 1298

A-1101
·1· was the issue of the excused absences and the delayed
·2· test dates for the APRC in considering Zainulabeddin's
·3· case?
·4· · · A.· ·I don't believe they were part of the
·5· discussion at all.
·6· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So in your understanding the discussion
·7· was focused on U grades and the doctoring and the
·8· evidence-based clinical reasoning and then below average
·9· pass -- grades that were passes but numerically below
10· average in the Course 5, Course 6, and Course 7?
11· · · A.· ·No.· I would say they were the unsatisfactory
12· grades in the context of having repeated Year I and Year
13· II more than anything else as well as the reasons for
14· the U grades in those courses which you see reflected in
15· the letter you had read with those seven items of
16· concern which really come more from the clinically-based
17· courses than the content-based courses.
18· · · Q.· ·So there was a sense that her performance in
19· the clinically based courses could be -- indicate that
20· she wouldn't be successful as a clinician?
21· · · A.· ·Correct.
22· · · Q.· ·So in the Year III, would she be expected to
23· continue developing skills in terms of being a
24· clinician?
25· · · A.· ·Absolutely.
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 82 of 182 PageID 1299

A-1102
·1· · · Q.· ·Because she's -- is that a year where there's
·2· some shadowing of physicians, that sort of thing?
·3· · · A.· ·It goes way beyond shadowing.· I mean, they are
·4· hands-on dealing with patients, very little in the way
·5· of what I would call invasive procedures, but in terms
·6· of histories and physicals and workups and differential
·7· diagnosis, students do that routinely in the third year.
·8· · · · · ·It takes a significant amount of ability to be
·9· able to clinically integrate all the knowledge you've
10· acquired over those first two years.
11· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So it was of particular concern I guess
12· at this point about whether she had the skills in terms
13· of clinical performance, clinical reasoning, physical
14· exam skills, whether she had those skills to go in and
15· perform adequately in Year III?
16· · · A.· ·That is correct.· The way I would phrase it is
17· that the skills she was able to demonstrate did not
18· match the expectation of the faculty for a novice
19· student entering the third year because there's
20· tremendous difference in the expectations clinically of
21· a student entering the third year and leaving the third
22· year, and so I often say that our faculty have a very
23· low set of expectations of ability of students entering
24· the third year and she did not meet those.
25· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So was there a sense that she'd be --
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 83 of 182 PageID 1300

A-1103
·1· that if she proceeded to the third year that she would
·2· be a problem to work with or that she would be a problem
·3· in terms of dealing with -- interacting with patients,
·4· something like that?
·5· · · A.· ·No.· I don't think anybody had that feeling.
·6· When you say a problem to work with meaning the
·7· interactions between her and other healthcare
·8· professionals, no, not a problem.· Her ability to
·9· interact with patients, no, not a problem, but her
10· ability to assimilate the knowledge she acquired when
11· examining a patient and put that into an effective
12· differential diagnosis and then clinical plan, that was
13· where the major concern was.
14· · · Q.· ·And that was what you were referring to when
15· you referred to clinical integration?
16· · · A.· ·Correct.
17· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· Should we break for lunch?· It's
18· · · almost 11:30.
19· · · · · ·MR. POOLE:· We'll go off.
20· · · · · · · · ·(Discussion off the record.)
21· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· Can we go back to the report by
22· Dr. Schoenberg about Ms. Zainulabeddin.
23· · · A.· ·Okay.
24· · · Q.· ·This is the 2010 version.· So you said you felt
25· that the 2012 addendum indicated that there was
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 84 of 182 PageID 1301

A-1104
·1· information that hadn't been set forth in this first --
·2· this first time.· Do you recall what that additional
·3· information was?
·4· · · A.· ·Her revelation to Dr. Schoenberg that she had a
·5· previous diagnosis.
·6· · · Q.· ·Of?
·7· · · A.· ·Of attention deficit.
·8· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So you think she hadn't said that to him
·9· -- or he indicated to you that she hadn't said that to
10· him the first time?
11· · · A.· ·In the 2012 report he makes a statement that
12· there was information withheld.· I don't remember the
13· language that he used precisely, but it's in that
14· report, but very clearly he makes the indication that
15· information was withheld and that's why his diagnosis
16· was being addended.
17· · · Q.· ·So did you recommend that he -- that she meet
18· with him again and that they do an addendum to the
19· report?
20· · · A.· ·I did not.
21· · · Q.· ·Do you know how that came about?
22· · · A.· ·I do not.· I believe it was on her own volition
23· having gotten a different recommendation -- or a
24· different diagnosis and then -- I don't know why she
25· chose to go back to him at that time.
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 85 of 182 PageID 1302

A-1105
·1· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And so when you reviewed this you
·2· wouldn't have -- did you look closely at the things like
·3· the neuropsychological data summary or did you look at
·4· the recommendation?
·5· · · A.· ·I looked at the data and I can tell you quite
·6· clearly that the numbers are absolutely meaningless to
·7· me because I have no training to assess those numbers,
·8· so they were numbers.· I mean, I could look and see that
·9· there are numbers there and I could see that some things
10· did not look good, but I don't have the training to
11· assess them.
12· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Right.· I mean, so you could see things
13· that some -- some percentiles are very low, but --
14· · · A.· ·Right.
15· · · Q.· ·-- you wouldn't necessarily know what they
16· meant other than being low?
17· · · A.· ·Right.
18· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So to the extent that you discussed this
19· with her, you emphasized the things in the
20· recommendations?
21· · · A.· ·Correct.· Again, going back to the comment that
22· I made to you about it being equivocal, there's a
23· statement here.· It says she was evaluated for ADHD at
24· the USF Counseling Center.· Results were borderline.
25· · · Q.· ·Right.
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 86 of 182 PageID 1303

A-1106
·1· · · A.· ·So to me borderline means equivocal.
·2· · · Q.· ·Right.· Right.· Yeah.· Do you recall when you
·3· went over this with Nausheen in December of 2010 or
·4· January of 2011, whenever it was, do you recall
·5· discussing with her the use of Adderall, the stimulant?
·6· · · A.· ·Is that in here?
·7· · · Q.· ·Well, I mean, it doesn't say anything about you
·8· discussing it.
·9· · · A.· ·Oh, here, it does.
10· · · Q.· ·It discusses -- after the part you pointed out,
11· it discusses Adderall.
12· · · A.· ·Yeah.· I remember reading in here where it says
13· that I guess she thought that was a problem because she
14· failed a course while using the drug.
15· · · Q.· ·Did you discuss with her if she was taking
16· attention deficit medication at that time, in --
17· · · A.· ·I did not.
18· · · Q.· ·-- December of 2010?· No?
19· · · · · ·Okay.· So you didn't talk to her about that?
20· · · · · ·MR. POOLE:· Objection.· Asked and answered.
21· · · You can answer it again.
22· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· But I will add, you know, I'm not
23· · · a physician, so I don't discuss things that I have
24· · · no knowledge to be able to discuss.
25· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· So other than to determine if
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 87 of 182 PageID 1304

A-1107
·1· Zainulabeddin had, you know, some kind of
·2· neuropsychological deficit or disability, was there
·3· another purpose to the comprehensive assessment of
·4· learning style that she was asked to do by the APRC?
·5· · · A.· ·To determine if there was an underlying cause
·6· for her weak academic performance to see if it could be
·7· corrected.
·8· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And so by underlying cause, what types
·9· of underlying cause could it be other than some sort of
10· neuropsychological deficit or condition?
11· · · A.· ·Well, it would be, I mean, but it could be
12· something other than attention deficit, so it could be
13· dyslexia.· It could be a processing issue.· It could be,
14· you know, a variety of other things that cause people to
15· do poor academically.
16· · · Q.· ·Okay.· But the concept was that you were sort
17· of assessing to see if there was something like some
18· kind of disability essentially?
19· · · A.· ·Absolutely.
20· · · Q.· ·And was Dr. Monroe still taking a leading role
21· in the APRC at the time when Ms. Zainulabeddin was
22· dismissed for the second time --
23· · · A.· ·Yes.
24· · · Q.· ·-- in March?
25· · · · · ·Okay.· How much longer did she -- did she play
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 88 of 182 PageID 1305

A-1108
·1· that role?
·2· · · A.· ·She left at the end of December of 2013.
·3· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So she would have been --
·4· · · A.· ·So she was involved in every step but the last
·5· step which was when Ms. Zainulabeddin applied for
·6· readmission she was no longer here.
·7· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you know if there was a policy under
·8· which the APRC was requiring students to obtain, you
·9· know, assessments of learning style?
10· · · A.· ·So to answer your question accurately, because
11· this is a very important thing within the state of
12· Florida, there was not a policy because policies come
13· from the board of trustees.
14· · · Q.· ·Okay.
15· · · A.· ·Okay?· There were guidelines that said that if
16· the APRC had a concern they could recommend such an
17· evaluation for a student.
18· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Were those guidelines contained in the
19· student handbook?
20· · · A.· ·There is a reference to it in the student
21· handbook.
22· · · Q.· ·But there are also guidelines I guess other
23· than what's in the student handbook?
24· · · A.· ·It's pretty much what's in the student handbook
25· are what are official guidelines.
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 89 of 182 PageID 1306

A-1109
·1· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And you say recommended, but wasn't
·2· Zainulabeddin essentially required to obtain an
·3· assessment of her learning style?
·4· · · A.· ·Let's look at the language going back.
·5· · · Q.· ·The language of the letter -- which exhibit is
·6· it.· It's the June 7th --
·7· · · A.· ·Yes.· It says, you are required to obtain a
·8· comprehensive assessment of your learning style, so
·9· there it was a requirement.
10· · · Q.· ·But I guess she wasn't -- was she required to
11· do it with the person that you --
12· · · A.· ·She was not.
13· · · Q.· ·-- recommended?
14· · · A.· ·As I said, we had arrangements so that it could
15· be done at a lower cost, so it was advantageous to do it
16· that way.
17· · · Q.· ·So the arrangement was that if she went with
18· the person that you recommended, then essentially the
19· school would pay for it?
20· · · A.· ·Correct.· That's also an advantage.
21· · · Q.· ·And do you know if any members of the APRC
22· reviewed the original version of Dr. Schoenberg's
23· assessment, the 2010 version?
24· · · A.· ·I'm not aware that they saw the document.
25· · · Q.· ·So then the one that would have been possibly
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 90 of 182 PageID 1307

A-1110
·1· made available to them would have been the modified, the
·2· 2012 version?
·3· · · A.· ·I don't believe they saw that either.· They
·4· were -- both of these would have been presented in
·5· summary to them, but not the actual document.
·6· · · Q.· ·Okay.
·7· · · A.· ·And that's all related to FERPA and need to
·8· know.
·9· · · Q.· ·In terms of the summary of the information, was
10· it you who presented that to them or did someone else do
11· that?· I'm thinking in February of 2011, that time, that
12· meeting.
13· · · A.· ·It would have been me who presented that.
14· · · Q.· ·So you sort of paraphrased for them the fact
15· that, you know, there was now a more -- why don't I ask
16· you.
17· · · · · ·Do you recall more or less -- what do you
18· recall telling them when you sort of paraphrased or
19· summarized this matter to them?
20· · · A.· ·The original recommendation?
21· · · Q.· ·When you -- well, whatever you told them in
22· mid-February of 2011.
23· · · A.· ·So I would have indicated what the
24· recommendations were from this, probably not verbatim as
25· you said, but in summary.
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 91 of 182 PageID 1308

A-1111
·1· · · · · ·I would have said that, you know, there was a
·2· statement made that it was borderline so that the result
·3· was equivocal and would have let them know that she was
·4· entitled to a certain accommodation if she filed for it
·5· with Student Disability Services.
·6· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And so you would have presented that in
·7· -- you would have tried to present that in a factual
·8· manner?
·9· · · A.· ·Absolutely.
10· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And it was Dr. Monroe who then made a
11· proposal based on those facts?· Is that what you recall?
12· · · A.· ·Dr. Monroe made the recommendation for the
13· reconsideration, yes.
14· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Would you say you would summarize more
15· or less the same facts previously to Dr. Monroe?
16· · · A.· ·Yes.· Dr. Monroe had access to the document
17· because --
18· · · Q.· ·So she would have access to the 2010 version
19· and the 2012 version --
20· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
21· · · Q.· ·-- or whatever versions were available at that
22· time?
23· · · A.· ·Right, because all the people who had the
24· responsibility for caring for those documents work
25· directly for her, so they would be advising her and
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW DocumentSteven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 91 of 182 PageID 1308
Specter
A-1112 December 08, 2016 91

·1· · · · · ·I would have said that, you know, there was a


·2· statement made that it was borderline so that the result
·3· was equivocal and would have let them know that she was
·4· entitled to a certain accommodation if she filed for it
·5· with Student Disability Services.
·6· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And so you would have presented that in
·7· -- you would have tried to present that in a factual
·8· manner?
·9· · · A.· ·Absolutely.
10· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And it was Dr. Monroe who then made a
11· proposal based on those facts?· Is that what you recall?
12· · · A.· ·Dr. Monroe made the recommendation for the
13· reconsideration, yes.
14· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Would you say you would summarize more
15· or less the same facts previously to Dr. Monroe?
16· · · A.· ·Yes.· Dr. Monroe had access to the document
17· because --
18· · · Q.· ·So she would have access to the 2010 version
19· and the 2012 version --
20· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
21· · · Q.· ·-- or whatever versions were available at that
22· time?
23· · · A.· ·Right, because all the people who had the
24· responsibility for caring for those documents work
25· directly for her, so they would be advising her and

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW DocumentSteven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 92 of 182 PageID 1309
Specter
A-1113 December 08, 2016 92

·1· sharing the document with her, meaning myself and then
·2· Dr. Frazier Stevenson who ultimately took responsibility
·3· for those documents at a later time.
·4· · · Q.· ·And do you recall being contacted about a
·5· request for a tuition refund that was initiated by
·6· Nausheen Zainulabeddin?
·7· · · A.· ·Yes.
·8· · · Q.· ·What do you recall about that?
·9· · · A.· ·I recall that she had requested it and I
10· referred her to the registrar who would process it and
11· probably spoke to the registrar and asked her to handle
12· it with expedience, but that's all.· I didn't have any
13· decision making on whether or not she would get that
14· refund or what it was.· We have a standard practice for
15· that.
16· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So you just identified the relevant time
17· period?· Something like that?
18· · · A.· ·I didn't have to identify the relevant time
19· period because the registrar would be the official
20· keeper of that time period and would have that data more
21· accurately than even I would.
22· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And this had to do with the -- the
23· refund that she actually received, was that -- was that
24· related to that leave of absence --
25· · · A.· ·Correct.

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW DocumentSteven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 93 of 182 PageID 1310
Specter
A-1114 December 08, 2016 93

·1· · · Q.· ·-- at the end of two thousand -- well, I


·2· guess --
·3· · · A.· ·2012.
·4· · · Q.· ·Yeah, in early 2012?
·5· · · A.· ·Right.· So it would be related directly to the
·6· amount of time on a percentage basis she actually took
·7· in the curriculum and she would have gotten a refund
·8· based on whatever formula they use to refund.
·9· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And do you know if there's a contractual
10· relationship between the University and students,
11· medical students?· In other words, do you know if they
12· -- when they attend the school if they attend based on a
13· contract with the University or if they attend on some
14· other basis?
15· · · · · ·MR. POOLE:· Objection.· Calls for a legal
16· · · conclusion.· You can answer.
17· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So I don't know of any -- you
18· · · know, it depends how you use the word contract. I
19· · · don't believe there is a written contract, per se,
20· · · but I would assume that this institution uses the
21· · · same kind of contractual arrangement that every
22· · · university uses, which is probably more
23· · · understanding than written.
24· · · · · ·I know a student agrees to pay tuition,
25· · · whatever the school's tuition is, for that year.

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW DocumentSteven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 94 of 182 PageID 1311
A-1115
Specter
December 08, 2016 94

·1· · · That would be the extent of the contract as far as I


·2· · · know.· Again, the student handbook I believe
·3· · · discusses tuition and refunds, both.
·4· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· So you would say that generally
·5· the refund would be handled in accordance with the
·6· student handbook?
·7· · · A.· ·Correct.
·8· · · Q.· ·Would this be an area where, as with the APRC,
·9· that extenuating circumstances might mean that refunds
10· would be handled in a different manner?
11· · · A.· ·Not to my knowledge.
12· · · Q.· ·Okay.
13· · · A.· ·Strictly on a time basis, percentage of time
14· basis.
15· · · Q.· ·Pro rata?
16· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
17· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So in your awareness, the only reason
18· that a refund would be granted is because the student
19· was actually not attending school or not allowed to
20· attend school within a certain period?
21· · · A.· ·Correct.
22· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Such as being on a leave of absence?
23· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
24· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· Well, let's have lunch and meet back
25· · · at 3:00.

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW DocumentSteven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 95 of 182 PageID 1312
Specter
A-1116 December 08, 2016 95

·1· · · · · ·MR. POOLE:· All right.· Sounds good.


·2· · · · · · · · · ·(Luncheon recess.)
·3· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· Back on the record.
·4· · · · · ·Dr. Specter, do you recall you're still under
·5· oath?
·6· · · A.· ·Yes.
·7· · · Q.· ·Okay.
·8· · · A.· ·That was actually my reference.· I knew that
·9· would be the first question.
10· · · Q.· ·You learned how it works.· So I'm going to
11· enter Exhibit 13.
12· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 13 was marked for
13· identification.)
14· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· Are you familiar with this
15· document, Dr. Specter?
16· · · A.· ·I am.· This is the addendum document to the
17· neuropsych evaluation and I think the addendum
18· information, first couple of sentences, verify what I
19· was saying to you earlier about her withholding some
20· information.
21· · · Q.· ·Right.· So I was going to ask, so the -- so you
22· were referring to the second sentence there, "Due to
23· cultural and historical factors, the student had not
24· provided all historical information about extent of her
25· attention problems."

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW DocumentSteven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 96 of 182 PageID 1313
Specter
A-1117 December 08, 2016 96

·1· · · A.· ·Correct.


·2· · · Q.· ·So is your understanding that this evaluation
·3· is more or less the same other than that addendum
·4· paragraph and in addition in the recommendations or do
·5· you think there are other changes as well?
·6· · · A.· ·No.· This is the identical report with the
·7· exception of the addendum.
·8· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And I think as it states at the end of
·9· the addendum, there's an additional recommendation for
10· increased test time --
11· · · A.· ·Correct.
12· · · Q.· ·-- which would be two -- on the next page it's
13· 2.c., "Student will benefit from extra time to complete
14· assignments/tests (time and one-half)" that I think is
15· an addition.
16· · · A.· ·Right.· That is the only change to the
17· document.
18· · · Q.· ·And since this evaluation with addendum is
19· dated March 14 of 2012, does that help in terms of
20· allowing you to assess whether this was available in
21· February of 2012 when you were providing the -- you
22· know, when you provided the new information to the APRC?
23· · · A.· ·So those dates were March dates as I recall, so
24· they would have been on the day, right, of that meeting?
25· · · Q.· ·I think -- I don't remember what number, but it

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW DocumentSteven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 97 of 182 PageID 1314
Specter
A-1118 December 08, 2016 97

·1· would be the APRC letter dated February 21.


·2· · · A.· ·Right.
·3· · · Q.· ·So February 16 --
·4· · · A.· ·So February 14th was the report date and --
·5· · · Q.· ·I think March 14th is the new report date.
·6· · · A.· ·Okay.· I'm sorry, March 14th.
·7· · · · · ·So if there were February dates they would have
·8· been prior to getting this document, but I believe it
·9· was after getting the other document from the other
10· evaluation that she had done privately.
11· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So they wouldn't have had this one?
12· · · A.· ·They would not have had this until March.
13· · · Q.· ·Were you able to -- so in February you didn't
14· necessarily know that Ms. Zainulabeddin had not provided
15· full historical information about her attention problems
16· to --
17· · · A.· ·Yes.
18· · · Q.· ·-- Dr. Schoenberg?
19· · · · · ·Okay.· Would it have changed -- do you think --
20· well, I won't ask you to speculate.· Never mind.
21· · · · · ·Okay.· And then --
22· · · A.· ·I know -- so let me comment on one thing
23· because you were going to ask me to speculate on
24· something and I won't speculate on something.
25· · · · · ·I will only say that had she revealed the

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW DocumentSteven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 98 of 182 PageID 1315
Specter
A-1119 December 08, 2016 98

·1· original information to Dr. Schoenberg, my expectation


·2· is that the recommendations he made here would have been
·3· his original recommendations.
·4· · · Q.· ·Okay.· That seems -- that seems reasonable.
·5· · · · · ·So looking at the second page of the -- of the
·6· report with addendum, do you think -- do you know or can
·7· you recall whether this first top paragraph was present
·8· in the earlier evaluation or if it was changed or
·9· unchanged?
10· · · A.· ·This was on the original document.· It probably
11· was on the first page because the addendum wasn't there
12· which is why it's missing from the copy you were able to
13· give me today.
14· · · Q.· ·Right.· Right.
15· · · A.· ·But you can see very clearly that it says she
16· denied attention problems and that clearly had to have
17· been the first time because she didn't deny it the
18· second time.
19· · · Q.· ·So in the first one he says she denied
20· attention problems, but ADHD is clearly a possibility?
21· · · A.· ·Right.
22· · · Q.· ·All right.· I'm going to admit this one as 14.
23· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 14 was marked for
24· identification.)
25· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So this was actually done in

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW DocumentSteven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 99 of 182 PageID 1316
Specter
A-1120 December 08, 2016 99

·1· · · March, so they would not have had this information.


·2· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· So do you think you've seen this
·3· document before?
·4· · · A.· ·No.· This is in relationship to her appeal for
·5· readmission and I was not involved with assessing the
·6· information.· This was done by a dean's appointed
·7· committee.
·8· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So this is not the other -- this is not
·9· the evaluation that you were talking about --
10· · · A.· ·No.· This one was in 2014.
11· · · Q.· ·Okay.
12· · · A.· ·There should be a 2012 document somewhere.
13· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Yeah, I don't -- I don't know of that,
14· but I can certainly -- you know, Mr. Poole and I can
15· certainly keep looking for that.
16· · · A.· ·I don't know if the school has a copy of that
17· document because that was the independent evaluation she
18· had done and it was on the basis of that she went to see
19· Dr. Schoenberg, but I don't know if she -- I don't
20· recall at all as to whether or not she submitted that to
21· us or not.
22· · · Q.· ·So at this point, what is your best
23· understanding of the -- of what the new information was
24· that you made available to the committee on --
25· · · A.· ·Well, I think it was that evaluation, but I

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 100 of 182 PageID 1317
Specter
A-1121 December 08, 2016 100

·1· don't have a copy to have a date to say for sure, but
·2· I'm fairly certain it was that evaluation.
·3· · · Q.· ·The evaluation --
·4· · · A.· ·That she had done privately.
·5· · · Q.· ·So the private evaluation, but we don't know
·6· who did that one?
·7· · · A.· ·Correct.
·8· · · Q.· ·But it wouldn't be -- it wouldn't be Michael
·9· Schoenberg?
10· · · A.· ·It was definitely not him.
11· · · Q.· ·And presumably it wouldn't be the woman who did
12· this one, Stefanie Mihalopoulos, that's on page seven?
13· · · A.· ·I honestly don't know who did this one, so.
14· · · Q.· ·This one reports the results.· If you look at
15· page three, it reports results from the
16· neuropsychological evaluation by Michael Schoenberg, the
17· 2010 ones, and then it doesn't report results from
18· another private evaluation, so if there is another one
19· it's not referenced here.
20· · · A.· ·Well, there is another thing referenced here
21· which I think is very important.· It says Nausheen was
22· diagnosed with ADHD in 2008 by a psychiatrist.
23· · · Q.· ·Right.
24· · · A.· ·There's no evidence of that anywhere.
25· · · Q.· ·Yeah.· I assume that refers to the diagnosis at

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 101 of 182 PageID 1318
Specter
A-1122 December 08, 2016 101

·1· the -- I think I know what that document is.


·2· · · A.· ·You know, that's a critical factor because this
·3· is what she withheld obviously from the school.
·4· · · Q.· ·Right.· By the time she was readmitted you had
·5· no -- you didn't have an idea that she was withholding
·6· -- had been withholding information?
·7· · · A.· ·No, I did not.
·8· · · Q.· ·But you believe there was a new evaluation that
·9· indicated that she had more -- less equivocally that she
10· had ADHD?
11· · · A.· ·Yes.
12· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Let's see.· I will enter this one. I
13· guess this is 15.
14· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 15 was marked for
15· identification.)
16· · · · · ·(Pause.)
17· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· Maybe together with that one we
18· · · should do 15 because it's actually referenced in 14,
19· · · so --
20· · · · · ·COURT REPORTER:· This would be 16.
21· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· Okay.· In the one you're looking at,
22· · · this is the professionalism e-mail that
23· · · interrogatory number four is about, so it's probably
24· · · useful to look at them together.
25· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 16 was marked for

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 102 of 182 PageID 1319
Specter
A-1123 December 08, 2016 102

·1· identification.)
·2· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· So have you -- have you seen the
·3· document, the objections and answers to interrogatories
·4· before?
·5· · · A.· ·I do not believe I was involved in the response
·6· to this, so, no.
·7· · · Q.· ·All right.· So I guess someone else must have
·8· worked with Ray on doing this.
·9· · · · · ·Well, I'm not going to ask you about, you know,
10· all of these.· I think I'm only going to look at the
11· responses to one and four, I think, because I think we
12· already covered some of the others.
13· · · · · ·So interrogatory number one just asks for the
14· reasons for the final dismissal of Zainulabeddin and the
15· answer is quite brief, "Due to her record of poor
16· academic performance."· Do you think that constitutes a
17· fair summary of why she was dismissed?
18· · · A.· ·Yes.
19· · · Q.· ·And you did go into a little more detail
20· earlier, I believe, so -- so a secondary reason was --
21· was a secondary reason her lack of preparation on the
22· clinical side?
23· · · A.· ·I don't know that I would call that a secondary
24· reason, because that is academics.
25· · · Q.· ·Okay.

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 103 of 182 PageID 1320
Specter
A-1124 December 08, 2016 103

·1· · · A.· ·So that -- you know, if you are taking the term
·2· academics to mean testing, then that would constitute
·3· two parts of it, but I think the term poor academic
·4· performance is used in the broader context of all of
·5· this.
·6· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So poor performance with the testing and
·7· also the clinical --
·8· · · A.· ·Integration.
·9· · · Q.· ·-- the clinical integration as you discussed.
10· · · · · ·What would you say was your source of -- where
11· did you derive the information that Ms. Zainulabeddin
12· was having trouble with integrating her clinical skills
13· with what she had been learning academically?
14· · · A.· ·That came from the physical diagnosis course
15· and there's actually a report from the faculty for every
16· student, but it was in that report and why she got an
17· unsatisfactory grade in that course.
18· · · Q.· ·So that's the Doctoring course it's called?
19· · · A.· ·It's Doctoring now.· I believe at that time it
20· was called Physical Diagnosis.· Maybe I'm wrong about
21· the transition of years, but it's the same course we're
22· talking about.
23· · · Q.· ·That's the course that in this period was --
24· the course directors were --
25· · · A.· ·Dr. Valeriano was the course director.

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 104 of 182 PageID 1321
Specter
A-1125 December 08, 2016 104

·1· · · Q.· ·Dr. Valeriano-Marcet and Dr. Sandra Stock, I


·2· guess?
·3· · · A.· ·Yeah, that sounds right.
·4· · · Q.· ·Okay.· It was that -- the course she was
·5· supervising in this here was called Doctoring, so, yeah.
·6· · · A.· ·And I know that in the packet of documents you
·7· have there is a written documentation from Dr.
·8· Valeriano-Marcet expressing her concerns about her
·9· clinical performance.
10· · · Q.· ·So that was your source for that?
11· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
12· · · Q.· ·And then I guess your source for -- well, her
13· problem in the Evidence-Based Clinical Reasoning course,
14· the evidence-based medicine test, that was -- was that
15· more of a testing problem --
16· · · A.· ·Yes.· That was just a number grade.
17· · · Q.· ·And you knew about that from Dr. Kumar?
18· · · A.· ·Dr. Kumar, exactly.
19· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So is it fair to say that your sources
20· for information and the APRC's sources of information
21· were primarily the course directors and the documents
22· provided by them?
23· · · A.· ·Correct.
24· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Great.· And then the professionalism
25· e-mail, Exhibit 16, do you recognize this document?

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 105 of 182 PageID 1322
Specter
A-1126 December 08, 2016 105

·1· · · A.· ·Yes.· This was an e-mail and I was on this


·2· LISTSERV as I have been for all the classes, so I had
·3· seen it before.
·4· · · · · ·As you can see, Dr. Stevenson is sending it out
·5· on behalf of himself and Dr. Stevenson was our associate
·6· dean for undergraduate medical education, myself as
·7· student affairs, and Dr. Kumar as the course director.
·8· · · Q.· ·Were you actually involved in drafting the
·9· letter or was it more just that he drafted it and sent
10· it out under your collective endorsement?
11· · · A.· ·I don't recall contributing to it, but I recall
12· reading it before it was sent out, so I was aware that
13· it was being sent out with my name on it.
14· · · Q.· ·So you approved it, I guess?
15· · · A.· ·Yes.
16· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you know where these reports came
17· that -- that some of the students had taken this
18· evidence-based medicine quiz as a group, on a group
19· basis?
20· · · A.· ·I believe this was an e-mail sent to Dr. Kumar,
21· but it was from an e-mail address that was not a
22· student's address that was traceable, so I don't believe
23· he ever knew who sent him that information.
24· · · Q.· ·So it was a sort of anonymous --
25· · · A.· ·Correct.

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 106 of 182 PageID 1323
Specter
A-1127 December 08, 2016 106

·1· · · Q.· ·So was it possible to verify the information?


·2· · · A.· ·Other than sitting down and asking the students
·3· if they did it, since no students were actually named,
·4· one would have had to ask every student in the class,
·5· which is why this was sent to the entire class.
·6· · · · · ·There was no practical way to identify who
·7· might have been involved in doing this or even if it was
·8· done.
·9· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So this was just a response in case --
10· in case it was, in fact, the case?
11· · · A.· ·Yeah.· I think there were significant enough
12· concern that this was a legitimate statement that it was
13· felt that we couldn't just ignore it.
14· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And is it a general rule that
15· collaboration on tests is not -- is not authorized at
16· the medical school?
17· · · A.· ·So it is not a general rule.· Every course
18· director has the right to create exams in the context
19· they want.
20· · · Q.· ·Sure.
21· · · A.· ·It is very unusual to have an exam project,
22· meaning it would be a group involved project.
23· · · Q.· ·Right.
24· · · A.· ·Our exams routinely are individual performance
25· exams.

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 107 of 182 PageID 1324
Specter
A-1128 December 08, 2016 107

·1· · · Q.· ·So since this exam wasn't defined as one that
·2· was a group project exam that could involve
·3· collaboration, it was -- it was -- therefore, that was
·4· not authorized?
·5· · · A.· ·I believe the instructions in the exam
·6· expressly prohibited consulting another resource.
·7· · · Q.· ·Okay.· That was what I was getting at.
·8· · · · · ·Okay.· I guess for the -- for the response to
·9· interrogatory six, we went over this pretty well, I
10· think, but I think there was a slight difference between
11· your answer.
12· · · · · ·The last bit of six, which is on page eight,
13· the question is whether USF continues to maintain a
14· policy or practice of providing independent evaluations
15· of certain USF MD students free of charge, and if not,
16· when the -- when the policy or practice was
17· discontinued.
18· · · · · ·The answer that's given here on page nine is
19· approximately February 2011.· I seem to recall you
20· thought it was -- that it continued a bit later when we
21· were discussing this earlier.
22· · · A.· ·I would say that this may be accurate and my
23· recollection of the date may have been off, but I knew
24· it was after the time that Nausheen had the opportunity
25· to get this, and as I said, it was related to finances,

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 108 of 182 PageID 1325
Specter
A-1129 December 08, 2016 108

·1· so I would go with this date.· I'm sure this is pretty


·2· accurate.
·3· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So what are we on now?
·4· · · · · ·COURT REPORTER:· Seventeen.
·5· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· Number 17.
·6· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· You're pretty soon going to get
·7· · · beyond my ability to count.
·8· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· That's a good joke.· No one ever
·9· · · makes good jokes at these things.
10· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· You have to remember I started
11· · · out by saying I can be irreverent.
12· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 17 was marked for
13· identification.)
14· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· Okay.· So this one, do you
15· recall being involved in producing this set of
16· responses?
17· · · A.· ·I do not believe I provided this information.
18· · · Q.· ·Okay.
19· · · A.· ·My guess is it came out of the Office of
20· Educational Affairs or the registrar's office.
21· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So the answer to interrogatory number
22· nine, and this has to do with the new information made
23· available to the committee which wasn't available at the
24· previous meeting, and the letter is, you know, again,
25· that APRC letter to Zainulabeddin dated February 21,

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 109 of 182 PageID 1326
Specter
A-1130 December 08, 2016 109

·1· 2012 where she was readmitted, so here they're


·2· indicating that it was the neuropsychiatric evaluation
·3· by Dr. Schoenberg was the new information.
·4· · · A.· ·Right.
·5· · · Q.· ·So in your view, is that -- is that not
·6· correct?
·7· · · A.· ·Based on what I see here on the dating of that
·8· neuropsych evaluation, I don't see how it could be
·9· correct because the evaluation is dated a month later.
10· · · Q.· ·Right.
11· · · A.· ·So my expectation would be that that couldn't
12· be correct and I believe it probably was the other
13· evaluation that we've talked about, but, like I said, I
14· don't believe I gave these answers, so I don't know --
15· · · Q.· ·So you don't think it might have been just the
16· original evaluation by Schoenberg, the 2010 one?
17· · · A.· ·I don't believe so.
18· · · Q.· ·Why wouldn't it have been that document?
19· · · A.· ·Because that document was known to the
20· committee prior to the start of the 2012-13 academic
21· year.
22· · · Q.· ·Okay.
23· · · A.· ·Isn't this a '13 document?· Maybe I'm -- hang
24· on.· Let me go back and look at this.· This is -- oh,
25· no.· It's 2012.

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 110 of 182 PageID 1327
Specter
A-1131 December 08, 2016 110

·1· · · Q.· ·We're talking about early 2012.


·2· · · A.· ·Right.· So, I'm sorry, yes, it would have been
·3· that document.
·4· · · Q.· ·In other words, the -- this one, the --
·5· · · A.· ·Yeah.· It probably was the original.
·6· · · Q.· ·So --
·7· · · A.· ·I've got to think back.· You know, we were
·8· aware of that document in December 2010, so that would
·9· not have been new information that was introduced in
10· 2012.
11· · · Q.· ·That makes sense.· So you don't think that this
12· document had somehow been misplaced and had not
13· previously come to the attention of the committee or had
14· not previously been reviewed?
15· · · A.· ·I do not believe so, no.
16· · · Q.· ·Okay.
17· · · A.· ·Because, as I said, you know, the 2010 document
18· does not have that definitive diagnosis that would have
19· compelled the committee to change its mind.
20· · · Q.· ·So you would say that it's unlikely that it's
21· the new information in --
22· · · A.· ·That is referred to.
23· · · Q.· ·-- on February 21, 2012 because this doesn't
24· have -- it doesn't have the information that would be
25· sufficient to bring about the change?

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 111 of 182 PageID 1328
Specter
A-1132 December 08, 2016 111

·1· · · A.· ·Right.


·2· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So when you spoke with Ms. Zainulabeddin
·3· in February of 2012, I guess you spoke to her on
·4· multiple times, but when you spoke to her on February
·5· 8th and she became -- you said that was the time that
·6· she became upset, do you remember if you admitted or --
·7· admitted to some sort of mistake or error when you were
·8· talking to Ms. Zainulabeddin at that time?
·9· · · A.· ·I did not admit to a mistake.· I indicated that
10· the transmittal of the document to her had not occurred,
11· but, again, that was with an expectation that she
12· already knew all the information in there because the
13· document said she had been explained the
14· recommendations.
15· · · Q.· ·Okay.
16· · · A.· ·So it wasn't a matter of mistake, but it was
17· acknowledging that I hadn't given her a copy of the
18· document, but, again, as I said earlier, that was
19· because she hadn't requested it at that time.
20· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Did you tell her that you had mistakenly
21· given her inaccurate information in the past about her
22· neuropsychological evaluation by Michael Schoenberg?
23· · · A.· ·I did not.
24· · · Q.· ·Okay.
25· · · A.· ·And that goes back to something I said to you

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 112 of 182 PageID 1329
Specter
A-1133 December 08, 2016 112

·1· much earlier about partial memory of conversations on


·2· her part.
·3· · · Q.· ·So you think she might have understood you as
·4· saying something like that because of her maybe
·5· difficulties with processing the information that she
·6· was getting?
·7· · · A.· ·I won't give you that conclusion.· I'll merely
·8· say it was what I would describe as selective memory.
·9· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Did you tell her that you had somehow or
10· in some way misplaced Schoenberg's neuropsychological
11· evaluation and that it delayed your review of it?
12· · · A.· ·Not that I had misplaced it, but that I hadn't
13· gotten it which is why there was a delay in reviewing
14· it.· What I hadn't done is found out that it had not
15· gotten to us, that somewhere in his office for some
16· reason it didn't get sent out.
17· · · · · ·And then there was a later occurrence after I
18· had reviewed it with her where -- I had had all of the
19· records for students who had these evaluations and there
20· was a period in time and that was probably in 2011,
21· although I couldn't tell you exactly when, that Dr.
22· Monroe had made the decision that she wanted all of
23· those records kept by the chief proctor who is the
24· person who was responsible for giving the
25· accommodations, and so I transmitted those documents to

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 113 of 182 PageID 1330
Specter
A-1134 December 08, 2016 113

·1· that office and I believe somewhere after that


·2· transmission that document was misplaced because we had
·3· to -- I know we had to request another copy from Dr.
·4· Schoenberg and Nausheen was made aware of that.
·5· · · Q.· ·All right.· So the delay you're referring to is
·6· the delay in Schoenberg getting it to you --
·7· · · A.· ·So in --
·8· · · Q.· ·-- so that he didn't get it to you until --
·9· · · A.· ·Sorry.· Go ahead.
10· · · Q.· ·-- December?
11· · · A.· ·So if you look at the document it shows that
12· her evaluations took place in the August-September time
13· frame.· One would have expected about at maximum a
14· two-week turnaround, meaning late September, early
15· October, and that didn't happen.
16· · · · · ·MR. POOLE:· I'm sorry, for clarity's sake, what
17· · · year are we talking about here?
18· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· 2010.
19· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· Yeah, 2010.
20· · · · · ·MR. POOLE:· Okay.
21· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· December 2010.
22· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· And lastly -- well, not lastly,
23· but for this particular topic area, on February 8th, did
24· you tell Ms. Zainulabeddin that you had previously
25· mistakenly given her information from another student's

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 114 of 182 PageID 1331
Specter
A-1135 December 08, 2016 114

·1· neuropsychological evaluation because of a mix-up?


·2· · · A.· ·I vaguely recall something where I stated
·3· something that was related to another student.· I said,
·4· wait, that's not correct and then corrected it, so, yes,
·5· I made -- mixed up two conclusions.
·6· · · Q.· ·So that was something that happened --
·7· · · A.· ·About the -- a similar time frame.
·8· · · Q.· ·When?
·9· · · A.· ·A similar time frame, but I couldn't tell you
10· exactly.
11· · · Q.· ·So is that something that you mixed up
12· conclusions on February 8th, 2012 and then you
13· immediately corrected yourself or you had mixed up
14· conclusions back in December 2010?
15· · · A.· ·No, not back in December because when -- back
16· in December when I had the original conversation with
17· her I was reading directly off of her document, but at a
18· later time I believe there was some point in time, and I
19· won't verify that date, but there was some point in time
20· when I remembered there was -- I got the two students
21· confused and the conclusion and misstated something to
22· her.· I did later correct that to her.
23· · · Q.· ·So that was sometime in the period when the
24· evaluation had been sent with the other evaluations
25· to --

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 115 of 182 PageID 1332
Specter
A-1136 December 08, 2016 115

·1· · · A.· ·Right.


·2· · · Q.· ·-- the head proctor's office?
·3· · · A.· ·Chief proctor's office.
·4· · · Q.· ·Chief proctor's office.
·5· · · · · ·So sometime in 2011, I guess, you had another
·6· -- you had a follow-up conversation with Zainulabeddin
·7· about the evaluation?
·8· · · A.· ·I had many --
·9· · · Q.· ·Many.
10· · · A.· ·-- conversations with her.
11· · · Q.· ·Okay.
12· · · A.· ·That's why I can't remember which specific one
13· this was an issue and -- or even why it came up as an
14· issue.
15· · · Q.· ·Would you say that that -- was that -- I guess
16· you had meetings with her every -- would you say in
17· 2011, were you having meetings with her every month or
18· two or less often?
19· · · A.· ·I would say they were periodic and not at any
20· regular basis and, you know, over the course of the year
21· it may have been somewhere between six and 10 meetings.
22· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And would you say -- I mean, what -- how
23· many of those involved discussion of the
24· neuropsychological evaluation results?· Is that
25· something like each time she saw you she would sort of

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 116 of 182 PageID 1333
Specter
A-1137 December 08, 2016 116

·1· want to talk about that with you or --


·2· · · A.· ·It would have been once or maybe twice at most,
·3· but it was not a regular part of the conversation.
·4· Sometimes some of those conversations were just a
·5· check-in, you know, to come by, her to say, I'm doing
·6· okay, things are going well, I'm feeling good about
·7· things.· Once or twice it was to discuss tutoring and
·8· getting tutoring.
·9· · · · · ·There were -- I don't remember if 2011 was the
10· year, but there was one of the years where I believe
11· three different people tutored her either because of her
12· schedule or their schedules not matching up, she needed
13· to change tutors.
14· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So do you know what the mix-up event,
15· whenever that -- I guess it had to be sometime in 2011.
16· Do you know what information that entailed, generally
17· speaking?
18· · · A.· ·I don't recall.· I don't believe it had any
19· significant impact on her ability to get accommodations
20· or not.
21· · · Q.· ·Right.· Well, she would have had -- I'm
22· assuming she would have accommodations by then?
23· · · A.· ·Not in 2011.
24· · · Q.· ·Right.· Right.· Not in 2011, right.· Not until
25· March 2012.

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 117 of 182 PageID 1334
Specter
A-1138 December 08, 2016 117

·1· · · A.· ·It's really not until 2012-13 that she applied
·2· for accommodations.
·3· · · Q.· ·Thank you.· But it wasn't something that would
·4· have caused her to -- like if she had gotten the correct
·5· information, caused her to go and seek accommodations
·6· right away?
·7· · · A.· ·No, because, you know, to that point in time
·8· there was no recommendation of accommodation of extra
·9· time which is what I think she was looking for.
10· · · Q.· ·So she wasn't particularly interested in the
11· distraction free environment accommodation?
12· · · A.· ·Not when she was doing the repeat of her first
13· year and I don't believe she ever came back and said I
14· want to institute the distraction free environment now.
15· · · · · ·It was not really until she needed to redo the
16· second year that she sought to get those accommodations
17· before the year started.
18· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So is it fair to say that Nausheen was
19· readmitted in late February 2012 because of the
20· awareness of her having a disability?
21· · · A.· ·Yes.· And I'll clarify that by saying an
22· awareness that she had an official diagnosis in writing
23· from a licensed mental healthcare professional that that
24· decision was made.
25· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Great.· So back to the exhibit.· There

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 118 of 182 PageID 1335
Specter
A-1139 December 08, 2016 118

·1· are these long lists of pages --


·2· · · A.· ·Right.· The APRC members?
·3· · · Q.· ·Yeah, the APRC members.· So I was just
·4· wondering --
·5· · · A.· ·How to get lucky enough to be on that
·6· committee?
·7· · · Q.· ·How does it work to operate a committee with so
·8· many members?· Is it just -- is it like a pick-up
·9· basketball or whoever's around can come to the APRC
10· meetings?· I mean --
11· · · A.· ·No.
12· · · Q.· ·-- do they all have to attend the meetings or a
13· certain percentage or --
14· · · A.· ·This list of names are individuals who were
15· involved in course direction.
16· · · Q.· ·Okay.
17· · · A.· ·And at that time our APRC was made up
18· exclusively of all of the course directors for all
19· required courses.
20· · · Q.· ·Okay.
21· · · A.· ·That has since been modified.· And at that time
22· it was -- a quorum constituted half of the voting
23· members and approval of any motion required half plus
24· one of those present.
25· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And when the course directors, when it

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 119 of 182 PageID 1336
Specter
A-1140 December 08, 2016 119

·1· was -- when the issue was a student having a deficiency


·2· in their course and they made a recommendation, would
·3· they -- would they then also participate in the vote or
·4· would they not?
·5· · · A.· ·The individual who made the recommendation did
·6· not participate in the vote.
·7· · · Q.· ·Okay.
·8· · · A.· ·Or, I should say, they did, but they abstained.
·9· · · Q.· ·They abstained, right.
10· · · · · ·And so -- and you would attend, but you
11· wouldn't vote?
12· · · A.· ·Right.
13· · · Q.· ·Were there other ex officio members who would
14· -- sort of were allowed to attend but didn't vote?
15· · · A.· ·There were staff support people who attended
16· the meeting as well from the Office of Student Affairs.
17· · · Q.· ·And are there records of which -- do you know
18· if there are records maintained of which APRC members
19· show up at which APRC meetings, like minutes that would
20· have attendance or something like that?
21· · · A.· ·There are not official minutes.· There are
22· notes and I could not tell you what has been retained or
23· for how long, but those are records that would be
24· retained in the registrar's office, if they exist.
25· · · Q.· ·Okay.

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 120 of 182 PageID 1337
Specter
A-1141 December 08, 2016 120

·1· · · A.· ·I see looking at this list that you have a big
·2· problem because when you go to interrogate Dr. Ambuj
·3· Kumar tomorrow you'll see in 2010-11 he was there twice,
·4· so he clearly has a split personality.
·5· · · Q.· ·Deborah Roth was also there twice.
·6· · · A.· ·I guess there was a little bit of not careful
·7· checking there.
·8· · · Q.· ·There was a stutter.
·9· · · · · ·All right.· I guess we'll do this one as 18.
10· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 18 was marked for
11· identification.)
12· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· Were you involved in any way in
13· preparing these ones?
14· · · A.· ·I'll look at it and see.
15· · · Q.· ·Sure.· Take your time.
16· · · A.· ·No.· I can tell by looking at the language of
17· the objections that that wasn't me.
18· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Well, I'm not going to ask you about all
19· of these, so you probably don't need to look at all of
20· them.· I can just tell you the ones that -- most of
21· these I actually have no desire to ask you about.
22· · · A.· ·Actually, in looking through these now, my
23· guess is that several people were involved in giving the
24· answer where something was denied or admitted, so
25· probably -- I don't know if -- you know, these things

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 121 of 182 PageID 1338
Specter
A-1142 December 08, 2016 121

·1· with -- like 10, 11, 12 would have been things that I
·2· may have been asked to respond to, all the things
·3· that --
·4· · · Q.· ·Well, it's the ones that relate to what we're
·5· talking about today that I want to ask you about, so I
·6· guess I want to ask you about the answers to numbers 10,
·7· 11, 12, 14 --
·8· · · A.· ·So let's do them one at a time, okay?
·9· · · Q.· ·Sure.
10· · · A.· ·So 10 denied because it wasn't a policy, it was
11· a practice.
12· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Great.· So would it be fair to say that
13· you had a practice of doing this for the purpose of
14· providing these evaluations to certain students to
15· assess disability status, but it wasn't pursuant to a
16· policy of the University of South Florida Board of
17· Trustees?
18· · · A.· ·Correct.
19· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Great.· That's very helpful.
20· · · · · ·How about number 11?· So, again, that would be
21· you denied it because it was a practice?
22· · · A.· ·Correct.
23· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Fourteen, would that be the same, denied
24· because it was a practice rather than policy?
25· · · A.· ·Correct.

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 122 of 182 PageID 1339
Specter
A-1143 December 08, 2016 122

·1· · · Q.· ·So it would be fair to say that in 2009-2010


·2· the college of medicine had a practice of providing
·3· neuropsychological evaluation to some students free of
·4· charge or at a reduced price?
·5· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
·6· · · Q.· ·Number 16, this is whether you acted as
·7· referring physician in regards to the neuropsychological
·8· evaluation.
·9· · · A.· ·Right.· And the reason that was denied is
10· two-fold.· Number one, I'm not a physician.· Number two,
11· it was -- you know, the referral really came from the
12· APRC, so I was the conduit, but not the referring
13· individual.
14· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Great.· I think -- the reason I ask that
15· is just because I believe if we go to the -- right.
16· Right.
17· · · · · ·So on the neuropsychological evaluation, at
18· least the 2012 version of it, says Referral Source,
19· Steven Specter, Ph.D., and apparently --
20· · · A.· ·Right.· So I was the source, but I was not
21· acting as a referring physician in the classical sense.
22· · · Q.· ·Right.· Okay.· Great.
23· · · A.· ·In other words, it's important to note that I
24· did not make the decision that she needed this.
25· · · Q.· ·Right.· Okay.· You carried out --

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 123 of 182 PageID 1340
Specter
A-1144 December 08, 2016 123

·1· · · A.· ·A requirement of the APRC.


·2· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Good.· And so is it fair to say that in
·3· carrying out that requirement of the APRC that you were
·4· acting on behalf of the school of medicine, the college
·5· of medicine?
·6· · · A.· ·On the principal that the APRC is a constituted
·7· committee of the college, yes.
·8· · · Q.· ·Okay.
·9· · · A.· ·It's a prescribed committee in the student
10· handbook.
11· · · Q.· ·So on 18 here, is that denied because there's
12· no definitive evidence that the prohibited collaboration
13· took place?
14· · · A.· ·Correct.
15· · · Q.· ·And then 21, do you know anything about this
16· one?· Admit or deny that Zainulabeddin was required to
17· take the final EBM examination in a more restrictive
18· environment than other students?
19· · · A.· ·So I'm not sure why that language was used, but
20· all of our students who receive accommodations of a
21· distraction free environment would take it in what you
22· might call a restricted space.· It's usually in a room
23· that is a small room because you're not going to put one
24· person in a classroom for 100 people.
25· · · Q.· ·Right.

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 124 of 182 PageID 1341
Specter
A-1145 December 08, 2016 124

·1· · · A.· ·You know, it's hard to know what they meant by
·2· restricted space, but certainly it was in a small room
·3· compared to a large classroom where a whole class would
·4· take an exam.
·5· · · Q.· ·So does that mean she was -- she was required
·6· to take the test within a distraction free environment?
·7· · · A.· ·She was not required.· It was she was offered
·8· the accommodation she was entitled to.
·9· · · Q.· ·Okay.· You would say that the -- that to the
10· best of your knowledge the University did not require
11· Zainulabeddin to take this test --
12· · · A.· ·In a closet?
13· · · Q.· ·-- in person, you know, basis with the
14· distraction free environment and all that?
15· · · A.· ·Say that again so I'm clear on what you're
16· saying.
17· · · Q.· ·So the University didn't require her to take
18· the test, you know, in a special distraction free
19· environment, that was something that your understanding
20· is if she did that she opted to do that?
21· · · A.· ·Correct.
22· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Then 23 and 24, do you know anything
23· about who assigns the final grades in ECBR II?
24· · · A.· ·EBCR II --
25· · · Q.· ·Sorry, EBCR, evidence-based clinical medicine.

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 125 of 182 PageID 1342
Specter
A-1146 December 08, 2016 125

·1· Sorry, I wrote the wrong thing.


·2· · · A.· ·Yeah.
·3· · · Q.· ·ECBR II.
·4· · · A.· ·So the course directors determine grades for
·5· all courses and there is an appeals process for that and
·6· I don't know if she appealed that grade or not because
·7· if she appealed the grade one of the people who would
·8· review that appeal would be Dr. Stevenson and I know for
·9· a fact from conversations with Dr. Stevenson that if a
10· student appealed a grade and he had concerns about the
11· way the grade was given, he would have a conversation
12· with the course director about it, but he would never
13· assign a grade for a course unless it was his course.
14· · · Q.· ·Okay.
15· · · A.· ·And he was very emphatic about that when I
16· spoke to him, so I know.
17· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So would you say 24, admit or deny that
18· the final grade for every other student -- well, forget
19· the language of the thing.
20· · · · · ·So your understanding is that for
21· Evidence-Based Clinical Reasoning II that the final
22· grades would be assigned by the course directors --
23· · · A.· ·Absolutely.
24· · · Q.· ·-- Dr. Ambuj Kumar and Dr. Deborah Roth?
25· · · A.· ·Right.

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 126 of 182 PageID 1343
Specter
A-1147 December 08, 2016 126

·1· · · Q.· ·So no one else would have been involved in


·2· doing that?
·3· · · A.· ·Correct.
·4· · · Q.· ·Okay.
·5· · · A.· ·And I'm guessing that was denied because of the
·6· language there of saying every other student, implying
·7· that it was done differently for her.
·8· · · Q.· ·I got it.· So I noticed that 28 is admitted,
·9· that Zainulabeddin successfully completed all of her
10· remediation requirements to correct her academic
11· deficiency in the second year -- Year II of the program,
12· the MD program, before her final dismissal, but number
13· 27 is denied.
14· · · · · ·Do you have a sense of why that one might have
15· been denied, whereas, 28 was admitted?
16· · · A.· ·I believe it probably is related maybe to the
17· term final dismissal.· In other words, one could presume
18· that the action of the APRC was the final dismissal and
19· the appeals did not reverse that and that might be why,
20· because the final dismissal then in actuality had
21· occurred back in March, and while she did complete those
22· remediations by May, that was -- I mean, like I said, I
23· didn't answer these, so I'm not sure, but --
24· · · Q.· ·Right.
25· · · A.· ·-- I can state unequivocally she completed the

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 127 of 182 PageID 1344
Specter
A-1148 December 08, 2016 127

·1· remediation of all academic deficiencies.· I can confirm


·2· that she was dismissed and I won't play with the
·3· language as to what somebody was thinking of when they
·4· used the term final dismissal.
·5· · · Q.· ·Fair enough.· When students are remediated in
·6· the MD program, what's the general approach?· Is the
·7· general approach that the student gets a U for
·8· unsatisfactory on their transcript and then they have a
·9· separate line for the remediation and they get a
10· separate grade for the remediation or is it always done
11· that way or is it sometimes done in a different way?
12· · · A.· ·It is recorded -- both are recorded in the
13· official record.· Very often the transcript will reflect
14· the final outcome, but there is a difference between the
15· transcript and the grade report.· The grade report will
16· record both grades.
17· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So the grade report will record both,
18· but the transcript might -- might just put them together
19· as one?
20· · · A.· ·Well, let me -- let me modify that.· If a grade
21· is not passing and a person gets an R grade, meaning it
22· needs to be remediated, that is different than a U
23· grade.
24· · · Q.· ·Okay.
25· · · A.· ·So a U grade would always get recorded, but an

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 128 of 182 PageID 1345
Specter
A-1149 December 08, 2016 128

·1· R grade would not get recorded on the transcript.


·2· · · Q.· ·Can you tell me about the difference between a
·3· U grade and an R grade then?
·4· · · A.· ·Yes.· An R grade primarily is used in the third
·5· year when a student has completed a clerkship and has
·6· not successfully completed one aspect of the clerkship,
·7· but successfully completed all other aspects.
·8· · · · · ·So, for example, our clerkships have a final
·9· exam and if a student doesn't meet a certain threshold,
10· they have not passed that exam, and so they're given the
11· opportunity to retake that exam usually at the end of
12· the academic year.· Very often these are standardized
13· exams and so they would get an R grade, which is kind of
14· a remediation required, and so it's a placeholder until
15· such time as they could retake that exam.· If they pass
16· that exam, then they get a pass grade.· If they fail
17· that exam, then they would get a failing grade.
18· · · Q.· ·Okay.
19· · · A.· ·If they get a U grade it means their
20· performance was poor enough broadly in the course or
21· clerkship that they failed and they have to remediate
22· the entire course or clerkship, not just one exam or one
23· aspect.
24· · · Q.· ·So an R indicates that just one element --
25· · · A.· ·Right.

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 129 of 182 PageID 1346
Specter
A-1150 December 08, 2016 129

·1· · · Q.· ·-- needs to be remediated, whereas, a U


·2· indicates a need to remediate the entire content?
·3· · · A.· ·Right.
·4· · · Q.· ·So when Zainulabeddin remediated for -- when
·5· she did remediation for Evidence-Based Clinical
·6· Reasoning and Doctoring, is it your understanding that
·7· she was then remediating the entire course content?
·8· · · A.· ·Not necessarily.· Very often -- so if you have
·9· a course where there are multiple examinations given and
10· a person passes two out of three exams say, very often
11· the remediation would be only that section which the
12· student had failed, so in the EBM it may have been for
13· the whole course because they may have only had that one
14· exam.· I don't remember the structure of that course in
15· terms of examination.
16· · · Q.· ·I think that's correct.
17· · · A.· ·So, yes, it would have been the content of the
18· course.
19· · · Q.· ·Right.· Are there also I grades used as part of
20· the system, like I for incomplete?
21· · · A.· ·Yes.· An I grade would be used if somebody had
22· not completed an aspect of the course.· So, for example,
23· if there are three exams in a course and you were
24· gravely ill for exam two and there was no time to make
25· it up because your absence was too long, then they might

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 130 of 182 PageID 1347
Specter
A-1151 December 08, 2016 130

·1· hold off giving you that exam until after the course
·2· ended, give you sufficient time to study and then take
·3· the exam.· In that circumstance an I grade would be
·4· issued.
·5· · · Q.· ·So an I grade would be a situation where you
·6· had been essentially -- you had turned in your
·7· paperwork, you had been excused from taking an exam, and
·8· then the course term had completed and the course
·9· directors had to submit something?
10· · · A.· ·Right.
11· · · Q.· ·And it would just indicate that you were
12· scheduled to take the exam?
13· · · A.· ·Right.· You know, by University rules when
14· somebody uses an I grade there is a requirement, a time
15· requirement for correcting that or it automatically
16· converts to an F grade.
17· · · Q.· ·Okay.
18· · · A.· ·That was not a common practice in the medical
19· school because unlike the rest of campus there's a much
20· closer relationship between the faculty and the students
21· here.
22· · · Q.· ·So I grades weren't used that commonly?
23· · · A.· ·They weren't used that commonly, but
24· occasionally it would happen.
25· · · · · ·Like I said, the circumstance would often be

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 131 of 182 PageID 1348
Specter
A-1152 December 08, 2016 131

·1· with somebody who is maybe sick for two and three weeks
·2· and rather than have them come back and take that exam
·3· they went back into the next session and made sure they
·4· were up to date on that and then they would go back and
·5· take that exam after a period of study.
·6· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So Zainulabeddin had completed her
·7· evidence-based medicine examination by the time that she
·8· was dismissed from the MD program?
·9· · · A.· ·She had -- I believe she had taken the exam and
10· not successfully passed it, but had not yet had the
11· opportunity to take a remediation exam.
12· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So she was given a U grade because --
13· · · A.· ·She had failed the exam.
14· · · Q.· ·-- she had failed the exam?
15· · · · · ·And was there a reason why an R grade wouldn't
16· have been an option for Dr. Kumar or was that just
17· within his discretion?
18· · · A.· ·No.· It was not a discretionary issue.· The R
19· grade, as I said, was pretty much reserved for third
20· year clerkships.
21· · · Q.· ·Okay.
22· · · A.· ·And so in the second year, even though we
23· allowed people to do a remediation of a course, if that
24· was their only failure, then they would get the U grade,
25· but then they still could remediate it and get it

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 132 of 182 PageID 1349
Specter
A-1153 December 08, 2016 132

·1· converted to a pass grade.


·2· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And so it would remain a U on the grade
·3· reports, but the transcript would show a pass?
·4· · · A.· ·Eventually.
·5· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So there's like a cycle of time?
·6· · · A.· ·Right.
·7· · · Q.· ·How long is the cycle?· Like six months or a
·8· year or something?
·9· · · A.· ·It could be a lot less.· It really depends. I
10· mean, at the end of the year grades had to be in by a
11· certain date for the end of the academic year, so, you
12· know, it could have been as little as three weeks or
13· maybe a couple months, but at the end of the year it
14· probably wouldn't be that; however, you know, like if it
15· was at the time when, say, Course 6 ended, it would be a
16· full block, which is typically about 10, 12 blocks.
17· · · Q.· ·So it would be until the next time that the
18· registrar accepted a submission of grades basically?
19· · · A.· ·Right.
20· · · Q.· ·Okay.· I understand that.· Good.
21· · · · · ·So I guess if Zainulabeddin had been readmitted
22· in 2013 after completing her remediation, then
23· eventually her U grades would have been updated to pass
24· grades --
25· · · A.· ·Yes.

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 133 of 182 PageID 1350
Specter
A-1154 December 08, 2016 133

·1· · · Q.· ·-- after a cycle?


·2· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
·3· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Let's do this one.
·4· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 19 was marked for
·5· identification.)
·6· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· This is for that NBME.
·7· · · · · ·So this was at Nausheen's request and I wrote
·8· · · on her behalf to the NBME to get accommodations for
·9· · · the first USMLE licensing exam.· And the reason I
10· · · did this even though she had been dismissed was she
11· · · was in appeal and I had had experience with the NBME
12· · · of taking up to six months to get approval of
13· · · accommodations so we wanted to not delay if she was
14· · · successful in her appeal of her being able to take
15· · · that exam because she would need to have taken that
16· · · exam in order to be able to start the third year of
17· · · medical school, so this would have potentially
18· · · delayed her beyond that time frame we talked about,
19· · · that was the six years.
20· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· So here you state that with
21· accommodation she was able to successfully pass all of
22· her examinations this year.· I guess you're referring to
23· the Course 5, Course 6 and Course 7 examinations?
24· · · A.· ·Correct.
25· · · Q.· ·What about the EBM examination?

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 134 of 182 PageID 1351
Specter
A-1155 December 08, 2016 134

·1· · · A.· ·She had not yet successfully completed it and


·2· had I said that in this, they wouldn't have administered
·3· the exam to her.
·4· · · · · ·My presumption was one of two things was going
·5· to happen.· Either this letter -- she was not going to
·6· pass and this letter was going to be moot or she was
·7· going to pass and then this would be an accurate
·8· statement.
·9· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And then she did ultimately pass --
10· · · A.· ·She did.
11· · · Q.· ·-- the EBM examination?
12· · · A.· ·But once she had been dismissed, the school
13· would not verify her for the USMLE exam.
14· · · Q.· ·So it was -- it did become moot?
15· · · A.· ·Right.· So they never ruled on this request.
16· · · Q.· ·Right.· So here it says during her initial
17· attempt at Year II she sought an educational
18· neuropsychological evaluation and was diagnosed with
19· ADHD.· That's not quite right, is it?
20· · · A.· ·It is accurate in that it was at the end of
21· that year, but it was in that initial year.
22· · · Q.· ·So it was her --
23· · · A.· ·So it was in 2012.
24· · · Q.· ·It was during her second attempt at Year I,
25· right?· She got the --

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 135 of 182 PageID 1352
Specter
A-1156 December 08, 2016 135

·1· · · A.· ·No.· She didn't have the diagnosis of ADHD at


·2· that time, so it was really only with the second
·3· evaluation --
·4· · · Q.· ·Oh, so --
·5· · · A.· ·-- which we had gotten a month before this.
·6· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So this is --
·7· · · A.· ·I'm sorry, a year before this, so we had that
·8· official diagnosis by this time and she had been taking
·9· the exams with her accommodations throughout the repeat
10· of second year.
11· · · Q.· ·So this is that other examination, the one
12· that --
13· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
14· · · Q.· ·Okay.
15· · · A.· ·And Dr. Schoenberg addended.
16· · · Q.· ·So your sense is that she got this other
17· private examination, neuropsychological evaluation
18· during her first attempt at Year II?
19· · · A.· ·Correct.
20· · · Q.· ·Which would be --
21· · · A.· ·It was probably in the time frame of February,
22· March of 2012.
23· · · Q.· ·Two thousand --
24· · · A.· ·2012, the end -- near the end of --
25· · · Q.· ·2012, right.

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 136 of 182 PageID 1353
Specter
A-1157 December 08, 2016 136

·1· · · A.· ·It was after she already knew she was failing
·2· the year because she had -- at the time she got that
·3· evaluation she had already failed Courses 5 and 6, okay?
·4· · · Q.· ·Right.
·5· · · A.· ·But it was still during that initial attempt at
·6· her second year.
·7· · · Q.· ·Wait.· I thought she passed Courses 5 and 6.
·8· · · A.· ·Not -- no, no, no.
·9· · · Q.· ·Oh, this is the first time.
10· · · A.· ·The first time.
11· · · Q.· ·So we're talking about February or March 2011,
12· her initial attempt at Year II when she was failing Year
13· II?
14· · · A.· ·No; 2012.
15· · · Q.· ·Okay.· 2012.
16· · · A.· ·I know it's hard to keep it straight.· It's a
17· lot of repeats.
18· · · Q.· ·Oh, I see.· I see.· So this was --
19· · · A.· ·So this was written in 2013, which was the time
20· at which she had passed Courses 5, 6, 7 on her second
21· attempt.
22· · · Q.· ·So when do you think you got that -- so you
23· think you -- that that was done in 2012 and that you
24· received -- around February 2012 and you received it
25· around that time?

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 137 of 182 PageID 1354
Specter
A-1158 December 08, 2016 137

·1· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.


·2· · · Q.· ·And that was the new information --
·3· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
·4· · · Q.· ·-- that led to --
·5· · · · · ·Okay.· And that's -- okay.· And that's
·6· described here.
·7· · · · · ·All right.· And when you say she's completed
·8· Year II of the MD curriculum, are you referring to the
·9· successful remediation or --
10· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
11· · · Q.· ·Do you think that was completed at that point?
12· · · A.· ·No, it was not.· It was a presumption.
13· · · Q.· ·You were presuming that she would successfully
14· complete or the letter would be moot?
15· · · A.· ·That's correct.
16· · · Q.· ·Okay.· We're almost done.· I guess this is 20.
17· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 20 was marked for
18· identification.)
19· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Not very nice on my part, but
20· · · honest.· So I think you can see from this that I
21· · · went to pretty extensive lengths to try and help her
22· · · present herself in a way that would make her more
23· · · successful.
24· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· So here she gave you for review
25· a statement --

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 138 of 182 PageID 1355
Specter
A-1159 December 08, 2016 138

·1· · · A.· ·Correct.


·2· · · Q.· ·-- to go to the -- to the National Board of
·3· Medical Examiners?
·4· · · A.· ·No.· This is in reference to her -- you're
·5· right.· This was for the --
·6· · · Q.· ·So part it has to do with the USMLE Step 1 --
·7· · · A.· ·Her appeal letter that was --
·8· · · Q.· ·-- and there's an appeal letter also.· Sorry, I
·9· didn't mean to talk over you.
10· · · · · ·So what I was getting at, so you went to the
11· trouble of reviewing both her personal statement for the
12· USMLE accommodations and her appeal letter?
13· · · A.· ·Correct.
14· · · Q.· ·Okay.
15· · · A.· ·So this was more in reference to her appeal to
16· the -- well, I think this was actually the appeal letter
17· to the dean's committee.
18· · · Q.· ·Yes.· That seems right.
19· · · · · ·And so you criticized the organization and
20· tried to give her some advice to streamline the
21· organization?
22· · · A.· ·Right.
23· · · Q.· ·And I guess you differ in your memory of an
24· issue because at the bottom of the first page, "You
25· indicate that I recommended what you should do during

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 139 of 182 PageID 1356
Specter
A-1160 December 08, 2016 139

·1· the appeal process; my recollection is that I informed


·2· you of what you had a right to do but did not make
·3· recommendations to you."
·4· · · A.· ·Right.
·5· · · Q.· ·And would that just reflect -- does that
·6· reflect your general policy of how you -- how you work
·7· with students or how you worked with students in that
·8· position as associate dean of student affairs?
·9· · · A.· ·I tried not to be prescriptive with students.
10· You know, when such high stakes are involved it is very
11· important that students make their own decisions, but
12· it's also important they have a clear understanding of
13· the options and the consequences of those options and
14· that was what I consistently did with students is to say
15· this is what you could do.
16· · · · · ·If they ask me specifically what I would
17· recommend, I would make a recommendation, but, again, it
18· was not prescriptive.· It's what I thought was in their
19· best interest.
20· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Did her letter for this confirm for you
21· the idea that Ms. Zainulabeddin had attention deficit
22· hyperactivity disorder because of its lack of
23· organization?
24· · · A.· ·It certainly was all over the place and
25· represented somebody who was one of two things, either

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 140 of 182 PageID 1357
Specter
A-1161 December 08, 2016 140

·1· not very intelligent, which I don't believe was the case
·2· with her, or somebody who had a great difficulty with
·3· focus, which would be an indication of attention
·4· deficit, so, yes.
·5· · · · · ·And what I said here was not that -- you know,
·6· I thought she was -- I did say I thought she was
·7· rambling, but I said if you want to convince people you
·8· have ADHD, rambling is one of the best ways you can
·9· convince them of that and I don't think that's what she
10· was trying to accomplish in this appeal letter.
11· · · Q.· ·Right.· And near the end, the sentence, "I did
12· indicate that overcoming your deficits was the only
13· likely way that the committee might reconsider their
14· decision but that I did not believe that they were
15· inclined to do that," do you know what that's referring
16· to?
17· · · A.· ·It's referring to the fact that she had this
18· consistent record of poor academic performance, that she
19· was unable in her first four years to demonstrate that
20· she could master new information in a single academic
21· year and that the committee knew that that was an
22· absolute must in order to meet the six-year time limit
23· and that's what that was in reference to.
24· · · Q.· ·So you thought that, in other words, that the
25· committee might reconsider their decision if they

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 141 of 182 PageID 1358
Specter
A-1162 December 08, 2016 141

·1· believed that Ms. Zainulabeddin was able to overcome


·2· these academic deficits?
·3· · · A.· ·Right.
·4· · · Q.· ·But that you didn't think that they were going
·5· to make that -- reach that conclusion?
·6· · · A.· ·And those comments were based on discussions
·7· that had taken place during the dismissal hearings
·8· initially and the comments that were made by the
·9· faculty.
10· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And so this isn't a reference to like
11· her cognitive deficits or perceptual deficits or
12· something like that?
13· · · A.· ·No.· It was really more this concern that she
14· had not been able to master information in what would be
15· a required period of time now because there was no more
16· flexibility in the schedule for her.
17· · · Q.· ·But her difficulty with that might relate to
18· whatever cognitive deficit she suffered from, did it
19· not?
20· · · A.· ·That is true, but the issue is really that --
21· not that she had deficits, but that given the
22· accommodations to account for those deficits she still
23· had not been able to be completely successful and that
24· was with material that was not new, and so the concern
25· was what's going to happen when she's getting new

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 142 of 182 PageID 1359
Specter
A-1163 December 08, 2016 142

·1· information in a much shorter time frame because of her


·2· clinical responsibilities, how is she going to be able
·3· to do this.
·4· · · · · ·You know, I think had she gone through the
·5· first and second years in two years and had the
·6· flexibility to do this third year twice there probably
·7· would have been a different scenario, but the faculty
·8· knew they were up against this deadline and knew of her
·9· difficulty in mastering information in the typical
10· period of time that a student would have.
11· · · Q.· ·Okay.· I think this will be the last exhibit.
12· · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 21 was marked for
13· identification.)
14· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So in this particular instance, I
15· · · believe Nausheen had postponed three exams already
16· · · during this academic year and that's what I had
17· · · mentioned earlier about concerns expressed by the
18· · · faculty that she was getting undue advantage for --
19· · · you know, versus her peers.
20· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Apps)· Okay.
21· · · A.· ·And that if she really needed to postpone
22· things that a legitimate source like the Student
23· Disability Services would really be the ones to consult
24· for this because she had yet again, as you see,
25· requested time, more time to study, and she indicated

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 143 of 182 PageID 1360
Specter
A-1164 December 08, 2016 143

·1· that it was related to her medications, so I felt -- I


·2· was actually trying to help guide her here in saying,
·3· look, you know, we can't just ask for this and have
·4· everybody take your word for it when this has been a
·5· problem throughout the year, but if you go to an
·6· authoritative source and have them say this is
·7· necessary, nobody can deny that.
·8· · · Q.· ·Right.
·9· · · A.· ·And that was -- that's what this was all about.
10· · · Q.· ·So she's talking about -- I guess exam three is
11· the last exam of Course 7?
12· · · A.· ·Right.
13· · · Q.· ·So it's sort of the last of the various
14· normally scheduled exams for that Year II?
15· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
16· · · Q.· ·So was she allowed to get an extension on this
17· exam or not?
18· · · A.· ·I do not believe that she got an extension on
19· this exam because Dr. Wheeler felt what I expressed. I
20· mean, I said this based on conversation with Dr.
21· Wheeler.· He was very dissatisfied with this.· He --
22· when he got -- at this point in time the course
23· directors were the ones that were the decision-maker on
24· who could postpone an exam or not and so he had
25· contacted me and, very upset actually, that this was

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 144 of 182 PageID 1361
Specter
A-1165 December 08, 2016 144

·1· happening yet again and felt that there was, you know,
·2· an undue advantage that the time frame she was talking
·3· about should have been sufficient to have covered the
·4· material she needed to cover, and so, you know, he just
·5· was frustrated and he said, look, you need to take this
·6· exam, which she did and she passed actually.
·7· · · Q.· ·Right.
·8· · · A.· ·But I just want to say you can't do this to
·9· her.· I tried again, without alienating my faculty, give
10· her an out and I believe she chose not to go that route
11· on her own, but I certainly made a suggestion for her
12· for a way she could have legitimately gotten an excuse.
13· · · Q.· ·Right.· Okay.· So prior to this time I guess
14· she had been requesting these extensions from different
15· course directors?
16· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
17· · · Q.· ·And so Dr. Wheeler would be I guess the person
18· who had become aware of them cumulatively?
19· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
20· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And so he saw that as a problem that it
21· was happening multiple times?
22· · · A.· ·Right.· Because the courses are integrated
23· courses, although the person's not the course director,
24· they're involved in heading their section, so Dr.
25· Wheeler's a pathologist and Course 5, 6, and 7 all have

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 145 of 182 PageID 1362
Specter
A-1166 December 08, 2016 145

·1· pathology in them, so he was intimately involved in the


·2· planning of those courses, so he was well aware of
·3· things like this that was going on with student
·4· absences.
·5· · · Q.· ·So was he sort of taking a role of overall
·6· director or something of Course --
·7· · · A.· ·No.
·8· · · Q.· ·Oh, of Course 7.
·9· · · A.· ·He was the Course 7 course director.
10· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Great.· Great.· He was the course --
11· okay.· Got it.· Okay.
12· · · A.· ·And the other thing I'll just point out is, you
13· know, I sort of was putting Dr. Wheeler and Dr.
14· Stevenson on notice that, you know, she could have gone
15· to SDS and they were aware that she had that option.
16· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· Right.· Right.· Okay.· I think I'm
17· · · done.· Do you have questions, Ray?
18· · · · · · · · · · · CROSS-EXAMINATION
19· BY MR. POOLE:
20· · · Q.· ·I'll make it really quick because I don't have
21· but a couple of minutes anyway.
22· · · · · ·Let me make sure that I understand sort of an
23· overview, that we're clear on some things.
24· · · · · ·First of all, it's my understanding that Dr. --
25· I mean, that Nausheen Zainulabeddin was enrolled at the

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 146 of 182 PageID 1363
Specter
A-1167 December 08, 2016 146

·1· USF College in Medicine in the MD program, is that


·2· right?
·3· · · A.· ·That's right.
·4· · · Q.· ·Is that a four-year program typically?
·5· · · A.· ·It has four academic years.
·6· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And as I understand at the outset or at
·7· the most an individual has six years in order to
·8· complete those four academic years?
·9· · · A.· ·That's correct.
10· · · Q.· ·And if I understood you correctly, Year II is
11· more rigorous, is more difficult than Year I, is that
12· right?
13· · · A.· ·That's correct.
14· · · Q.· ·And Year III, if I remember correctly, you said
15· was even more rigorous than Year II?
16· · · A.· ·Correct.· I will say parenthetically most
17· students would tell you that that is not the case, but
18· that's because they really enjoy being in the clinics
19· and they don't notice that they're working really hard
20· quite as much, but it's more rigorous because of this
21· need to study when they have less time to study.
22· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So to make sure I'm clear then, Year III
23· you have even less time to study than you have in Year
24· II, academic Year II?
25· · · A.· ·Correct, because Year II typically has 26 or

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 147 of 182 PageID 1364
Specter
A-1168 December 08, 2016 147

·1· 27 curricular scheduled hours and the number of


·2· scheduled curricular hours during Year III is 60 hours a
·3· week.
·4· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And so Ms. Zainulabeddin, her first year
·5· in the program she failed?
·6· · · A.· ·Correct.
·7· · · Q.· ·And then had to repeat that?
·8· · · A.· ·Correct.
·9· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And so -- and then as I understand when
10· she repeated the first academic year, which would have
11· been her second year of enrollment in the school, if I
12· understood you correctly, you said that she scored out
13· below the class average?
14· · · A.· ·Correct.
15· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And I think you said it was -- a
16· standard -- was it one standard deviation?
17· · · A.· ·No.· I'm sorry.· When I made that statement it
18· was in reference to the repeat of the second year.
19· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you recall, when she did repeat the
20· first academic year, how she performed relative to the
21· other classmates in that grade?
22· · · A.· ·So in the first course I believe she had her
23· best exam performance and she was probably just a few
24· points below the mean of the class.· Thereafter her
25· performance declined so that by the end of the year she

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 148 of 182 PageID 1365
Specter
A-1169 December 08, 2016 148

·1· was probably somewhere in the range of about one


·2· standard deviation below the mean for the class.
·3· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So notwithstanding the fact that she is
·4· now taking the first year a second time, she's still
·5· performing below the class average?
·6· · · A.· ·Right.
·7· · · Q.· ·All right.· Then she's permitted then after
·8· having completed the first year successfully to then
·9· begin her second academic year?
10· · · A.· ·Correct.
11· · · Q.· ·It's my understanding that she then failed the
12· second academic year?
13· · · A.· ·Correct.
14· · · Q.· ·So that would have been her third year of
15· enrollment in the program?
16· · · A.· ·Correct.
17· · · Q.· ·And she's only got six years to do it?
18· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.
19· · · Q.· ·All right.· And then after she failed the
20· second academic year, if I understand correctly, the
21· school allowed her to repeat the second academic year?
22· · · A.· ·Ultimately, yes.
23· · · Q.· ·And so that would have been her fourth year of
24· enrollment?
25· · · A.· ·Correct.

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 149 of 182 PageID 1366
Specter
A-1170 December 08, 2016 149

·1· · · Q.· ·And during those four years, Doctor, if I


·2· understood you correctly, the school, USF College of
·3· Medicine made provision for not one, but two
·4· neuropsychological evaluations?
·5· · · A.· ·No.· The school made provision for one.
·6· · · Q.· ·So they made provision for one
·7· neuropsychological evaluation for Ms. Zainulabeddin?
·8· · · A.· ·That's correct, in 2010.
·9· · · Q.· ·In addition to that, if I understood correctly
10· or if I read Exhibit 9 correctly, it appears that she
11· was provided tutoring, is that correct?
12· · · A.· ·She was provided tutoring as any other student
13· who requested it would be.
14· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And if I understood you correctly, when
15· she -- when a definitive diagnosis of ADHD was provided
16· to the school and to you, then she was thereafter
17· provided with accommodations in the form of extended
18· test taking time?
19· · · A.· ·Her accommodations were extended time to
20· one-and-a-half time and a distraction free environment.
21· · · Q.· ·Okay.· I was also curious about this class, the
22· Kaplan Classroom Anywhere, which was something that was
23· referenced in Exhibit 9, this letter dated February
24· 21st, 2012 to her.
25· · · A.· ·Uh-huh.

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404 YVer1f
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 150 of 182 PageID 1367
Specter
A-1171 December 08, 2016 150

·1· · · Q.· ·Was that something, if you know, that the


·2· school provided for her or that she provided for
·3· herself?
·4· · · A.· ·It was something that she would have provided
·5· for herself, I believe, and I don't recall which it was,
·6· but either Dr. Monroe or Dr. Stevenson would have been
·7· the source of that recommendation.
·8· · · Q.· ·Do you have any idea how many times she
·9· requested and received a postponement of a scheduled
10· examination?
11· · · A.· ·Through the four years that she was taking
12· them?
13· · · Q.· ·Yes.
14· · · A.· ·I don't know the exact number.· I know in that
15· last year there were three times where she requested
16· postponement and received it and a fourth time where she
17· requested it and did not receive it.
18· · · Q.· ·What about the year prior to that?
19· · · A.· ·I don't recall.
20· · · · · ·MR. POOLE:· Okay.· That's all I have.
21· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· Okay.
22· · · · · ·MR. POOLE:· We'll read.
23· · · · · ·MR. APPS:· I'll order.
24· · · · · ·MR. POOLE:· And we want a copy.
25· · · · · ·COURT REPORTER:· Thank you.

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 151 of 182 PageID 1368
Specter
A-1172 December 08, 2016 151

·1· · · · · · · · · · · · ERRATA SHEET

·2· · · · · · · · DO NOT WRITE ON THE TRANSCRIPT


· · · · · · · · · · ENTER CHANGES ON THIS PAGE
·3
· · · · · ·IN RE: ZAINULABEDDIN v USF BOARD OF TRUSTEES
·4· · · · · · · · DEPOSITION OF: DR. STEVEN SPECTER
· · · · · · · · · · · · ·DECEMBER 8, 2016
·5· · · · · · · · ·{US Legal Job No. 1506191}

·6· PAGELINE· ·CORRECTION AND REASON THEREFOR


· · ________· ·___________________________________________
·7· ________· ·___________________________________________
· · ________· ·___________________________________________
·8· ________· ·___________________________________________
· · ________· ·___________________________________________
·9· ________· ·___________________________________________
· · ________· ·___________________________________________
10· ________· ·___________________________________________
· · ________· ·___________________________________________
11· ________· ·___________________________________________
· · ________· ·___________________________________________
12· ________· ·___________________________________________
· · ________· ·___________________________________________
13· ________· ·___________________________________________
· · ________· ·___________________________________________
14· ________· ·___________________________________________
· · ________· ·___________________________________________
15· ________· ·___________________________________________
· · ________· ·___________________________________________
16· ________· ·___________________________________________
· · ________· ·___________________________________________
17· ________· ·___________________________________________
· · ________· ·___________________________________________
18· ________· ·___________________________________________
· · ________· ·___________________________________________
19· ________· ·___________________________________________
· · ________· ·___________________________________________
20· ________· ·___________________________________________

21· Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read


· · the foregoing document and that the facts stated in it
22· are true.

23· ________________________________________________________
· · DATE· · · · · · · · · · · · · · DR. STEVEN SPECTER
24

25

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 152 of 182 PageID 1369
Specter
A-1173 December 08, 2016 152

·1· · · · · · · · · ·US LEGAL SUPPORT, INC.


· · · · · · · ·4350 West Cypress Street, Suite 701
·2· · · · · · · · · · ·Tampa, Florida 33607
· · · · · · · · · · · · · 813-876-4722
·3

·4· DR. STEVEN SPECTER· · · · · ·December 19, 2016


· · c/o RAY POOLE, ESQUIRE
·5· CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
· · 200 West Forsyth Street
·6· Suite 1700
· · Jacksonville, Florida 32202
·7
· · RE:· ZAINULABEDDIN V. USF BOARD OF TRUSTEES
·8
· · Deposition taken on December 8, 2016
·9· USL Job No:· 1506191

10
· · The transcript of the above-referenced proceeding has
11· been prepared, and is ready for your review.

12· Any corrections you wish to make to the transcript


· · should be made on the errata sheet. Please do not write
13· on the transcript itself.

14· Please complete review of your transcript within 30 days


· · and return the errata sheet to our offices. You need not
15· return the entire transcript.

16
· · · · · · ·Very truly yours,
17
· · · · · · ·LISA ORTEGA, RPR
18· · · · · ·US Legal Support Inc.
· · · · · · ·4350 West Cypress Street
19· · · · · ·Suite 701
· · · · · · ·Tampa, Florida 33607
20· · · · · ·813-876-4722

21

22· CC via transcript:· Stanley Apps, Esq.

23

24

25

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 153 of 182 PageID 1370
Specter
A-1174 December 08, 2016 153

·1· · · · · · · · · ·CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

·2· STATE OF FLORIDA· · )

·3· COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH)

·4

·5· · · I, LISA ORTEGA, RPR, certify that I was authorized

·6· to and did stenographically report the deposition of DR.

·7· STEVEN SPECTER; that a review of the transcript was

·8· requested; and that the foregoing pages are a true and

·9· complete record of my stenographic notes taken during

10· said deposition.

11

12· · · I further certify that I am not a relative,

13· employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the parties,

14· nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties'

15· attorneys or counsel connected with the action, nor am I

16· financially interested in the action.

17

18· · · Dated this 19th day of December, 2016.

19

20

21

22· · · · _______________________________________
· · · · · LISA ORTEGA, RPR
23

24

25

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document Steven
29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 154 of 182 PageID 1371
Specter
A-1175 December 08, 2016 154

·1· · · · · · · · · · ·CERTIFICATE OF OATH

·2· STATE OF FLORIDA· · )

·3· COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH)

·4

·5

·6

·7· · · I, LISA ORTEGA, RPR, Notary Public, State of Florida

·8· certify that DR. STEVEN SPECTER personally appeared

·9· before me on the 8th day of December , 2016, and was

10· duly sworn.

11

12· · · Signed this 19th day of December, 2016.

13

14

15

16

17

18
· · · · · ______________________________________
19· · · · LISA ORTEGA, RPR
· · · · · My Commission Number:· FF 247368
20· · · · Expires:· August 25, 2019

21

22

23

24

25

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
Steven
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 155 of 182 PageID 1372

A-1176
December 08, 2016 ·1
EX 0011 Steven
Exhibits Specter, Ph. 0 2
D. PLTF 120816
EX 0001 Steven 4:1 70:15,16 07 15:10 2 27:18,19
Specter, Ph. EX 0012 Steven 08 15:10 36:20
D. PLTF 120816 Specter, Ph. 09 25:21 2.a 45:25
3:16 13:10 D. PLTF 120816 2.c 96:13
EX 0002 Steven 4:2 80:2,3,4
1 20 137:16,17
Specter, Ph. EX 0013 Steven
200 16:19
D. PLTF 120816 Specter, Ph.
D. PLTF 120816 1 13:10 21:20 2001 6:7
3:17 27:18,19
4:3 95:11,12 138:6 2006 47:22,25
EX 0003 Steven
EX 0014 Steven 10 65:1,2 2008 25:21
Specter, Ph.
Specter, Ph. 73:13 115:21 100:22
D. PLTF 120816
D. PLTF 120816 121:1,6,10 2009-2010
3:18 32:12,13
4:5 98:23 132:16 122:1
EX 0004 Steven
EX 0015 Steven 100 123:24 2010 5:18
Specter, Ph.
D. PLTF 120816 Specter, Ph. 10:41 58:15 18:5,14,19
3:19 36:9,10 D. PLTF 120816 10:45 58:15 19:2,9 23:4
38:10 4:8 101:14 11 70:15,16 26:8 28:13
EX 0005 Steven EX 0016 Steven 121:1,7,20 31:8 45:23
Specter, Ph. Specter, Ph. 11:30 83:18 47:1,18 49:5,
D. PLTF 120816 D. PLTF 120816 12 22:3 80:3, 6 53:10 74:14
3:20 41:15,16 4:11 101:25 4 121:1,7 83:24 86:3,18
104:25 132:16 89:23 91:18
48:10
EX 0017 Steven 100:17 109:16
EX 0006 Steven 13 67:5 73:11
Specter, Ph. 110:8,17
Specter, Ph. 95:11,12
D. PLTF 120816 113:18,19,21
D. PLTF 120816 109:23
4:12 108:12 114:14 149:8
3:21 44:3,4 14 96:19
EX 0018 Steven 2010-11 120:3
EX 0007 Steven 98:22,23
Specter, Ph. Specter, Ph. 101:18 121:7 2011 19:9
D. PLTF 120816 D. PLTF 120816 32:2 45:23
140 22:17,18
3:22 48:6,7 4:15 120:10 47:1,18 49:7
14th 70:22 74:14 86:4
EX 0008 Steven EX 0019 Steven 71:1,2 76:14
Specter, Ph. 90:11,22
Specter, Ph. 97:4,5,6 107:19 112:20
D. PLTF 120816 D. PLTF 120816 15 101:13,14,
4:18 133:4 115:5,17
3:23 49:25 18 116:9,15,23,
50:1 EX 0020 Steven 16 60:12 97:3 24 136:11
EX 0009 Steven Specter, Ph. 101:20,25
D. PLTF 120816 2012 5:18
Specter, Ph. 104:25 122:6 26:6 35:4,8
D. PLTF 120816 4:20 137:17 16th 56:5 36:4,20 39:6
3:24 53:21,22 EX 0021 Steven 17 108:5,12 48:2 54:3
149:10,23 Specter, Ph.
18 120:9,10 60:5,6,12,13,
EX 0010 Steven D. PLTF 120816
123:11 14 63:1 75:7,
Specter, Ph. 4:21 142:12
19 133:4 12,23,24
D. PLTF 120816 83:25 84:11
3:25 65:1,2 1:32 44:15
1st 6:5 90:2 91:19
93:3,4 96:19,

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
Steven
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 156 of 182 PageID 1373
A-1177
21 99:12
December 08, 2016
91:9 125:23
·2

109:1,25 4 8 abstained
110:1,10,23 119:8,9
111:3 114:12 4 36:9,10 8 49:25 50:1 academic 6:8,
116:25 117:19 38:10 80 22:6 41:12 24 7:2,5,18
122:18 134:23 40 22:6 79:24 80:15 8:3 9:3 10:10
135:22,24,25 17:9,19
80s 80:1
136:14,15,23, 20:11,14,23
24 149:24 5 82 80:16
21:16,18
2012-13 85 80:16
31:9,11,14,
109:20 117:1 5 41:15,16 8th 51:16,23 23,24 32:1,21
2012-2013 48:10 63:5 53:2,11 56:7 33:12,14 39:1
67:11 64:10,15 111:5 113:23 47:15 57:16,
79:4,14 81:10 114:12 24 59:11
2013 18:1 133:23 136:3,
76:9,14,24 67:11 69:5,20
7,20 144:25 77:20,24 87:6
88:2 132:22 9
136:19 5th 42:6 102:16 103:3
2014 6:5 9 53:21,22 109:20 126:10
99:10 6 149:10,23 127:1 128:12
2015 60:4 97 10:12 132:11
21 54:3 97:1 6 44:3,4,16 9:53 32:8 140:18,20
108:25 110:23 48:2 63:5 9:59 32:8 141:2 142:16
123:15 142:12 64:10,15 9th 51:13 146:5,8,24
66:21 79:4,14 147:10,20
21st 58:20 148:9,12,20,
62:12 149:24 81:10 132:15
133:23 136:3, A 21
22 60:12,14 7,20 144:25 academically
23 60:4,6,14 60 147:2 a.m. 32:8 8:10 9:20
63:1 124:22 58:15 16:11 20:10
6th 44:19,20
23rd 75:24 abbreviated 24:20,24 25:1
24 124:22 6:9 70:12 87:15
125:17 7 ability 43:9 103:13
250 16:19 52:8 71:25 academics
26 146:25 7 28:13 48:6, 72:11 82:8,23
7 63:5 64:11, 102:24 103:2
27 126:13 83:8,10 108:7 accept 41:21
15 79:4,15 116:19
147:1 80:7,10 81:10 accepted
28 126:8,15 absence 132:18
133:23 136:20 60:12,25 67:2
2nd 41:25 143:11 144:25 access 91:16,
62:8,9 92:24 94:22 18
145:8,9 129:25
70 79:24 accommodation
absences 81:1 76:3 91:4
3 75 80:9 145:4
7th 31:8 117:8,11
absolute 124:8 133:21
3 32:12,13 38:12 62:8 140:22 accommodations
30 75:1 89:6 absolutely 20:3,5 37:7,9
3:00 94:25 17:4 27:24
3rd 29:16 45:5,8,9
29:23 34:16 46:24 49:18
59:21 81:25 62:16,20
85:6 87:19

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1178
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 157 of 182 PageID 1374
December 08, 2016 ·3
75:19,22 add 46:13 15 alternative
76:1,2,6 86:22 advance 9:8 52:17
112:25 added 76:25 advancement alumni 5:16
116:19,22 addended 5:16 ambivalent
117:2,5,16 84:16 135:15 advantage 46:7
123:20 133:8, addendum 67:21 89:20 Ambuj 120:2
13 135:9 83:25 84:18 142:18 144:2 125:24
138:12 141:22 95:16,17 advantageous amended 26:6
149:17,19 96:3,7,9,18 67:23 89:15 37:23 54:12
accomplish 98:6,11 advice 138:20 55:3 74:20
140:10 Adderall amendment
adviser 33:22
accordance 86:5,11 37:17
94:5 advising
addition 14:24 91:25 Americans
account 69:22 96:4,15 149:9 46:20
advocacy 6:18
141:22 additional amount 10:10
advocate 5:25
accrual 13:22 15:18 22:5 38:19
43:15,17 6:12 29:22
18:15 19:20 56:16,25 40:3 82:8
accumulation 26:15,19 72:3 57:3,8,14 93:6
8:22 84:2 96:9 anatomy
advocated
accurate address 30:7 15:14,20
48:22 70:22 105:21,22 angels 53:18
107:22 108:2 affairs 5:21,
adequately 23 6:4 43:12 angry 51:9
134:7,20 37:8 82:15 45:3,6,10 anonymous
accurately ADHD 17:25 49:20 59:10 105:24
88:10 92:21 37:13 46:14 105:7 108:20 answering
achieve 33:4 54:15,24 119:16 139:8 12:23
acknowledge 55:2,4 58:1 agenda 7:12, answers 102:3
53:17 72:11 73:20 16 8:6,19 109:14 121:6
acknowledging 74:9 75:14,19 9:6,10 29:5
85:23 98:20 anxiety 46:8
111:17 agrees 93:24 47:5,8,14,20
acquired 100:22 101:10
134:19 135:1 ahead 6:14 anytime 59:24
82:10 83:10 30:10 38:12
140:8 149:15 apologize
Act 46:20,21 113:9 50:9 51:14
acted 122:6 adjacent 27:9
Alicia 24:16 apologizing
acting 40:16 administered 56:4
45:6 134:2 50:13,15
122:21 123:4 alienating apparent
action 9:13, administers 144:9
49:18 24:25
25 12:14 allowed 11:17 apparently
20:2,6 29:9 administration 38:18,20
6:2 122:19
42:12,13 70:7 68:20,21
126:18 admission appeal 29:11
94:19 119:14 36:13,15,20
actions 9:15 16:9,23 131:23 143:16
admit 98:22 37:15 38:1,5,
28:2 148:21 15 39:3,6,8,9
activity 23:4 111:9 123:16 allowing
125:17 42:7,9,12,13,
actual 90:5 96:20 17,19 43:6
actuality admitted alluded 33:4 51:19 52:1,2
126:20 15:24 111:6,7 54:5,7 68:22
120:24 126:8,

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1179
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 158 of 182 PageID 1375
December 08, 2016 ·4
69:17,23 50:3 53:24 arrangements attempt 34:2
70:20 99:4 58:14,16 65:6 89:14 64:14 134:17,
125:8 133:11, 70:18 71:4,8, arranging 24 135:18
14 138:7,8, 12,14,17,18 17:12 136:5,12,21
12,15,16 80:6 83:17,21 asks 102:13 attend 29:6,
139:1 140:10 86:25 94:4,24 aspect 47:6 20 93:12,13
appealed 95:3,14 99:2 63:24 128:6, 94:20 118:12
29:10 38:3 101:17,21 23 129:22 119:10,14
79:8 125:6,7, 102:2 108:5, aspects 128:7 attendance
10 8,14 113:19, 119:20
21,22 120:12 assess 85:7,
appealing 11 96:20 attended
68:24 133:20 137:24 29:15,18
142:20 145:16 121:15
appeals 68:21 assessing 36:22,23
125:5 126:19 150:21,23 37:1,3 119:15
87:17 99:5
appears 32:20 APRC 6:10,20 attending
7:7,21 8:5 assessment
149:10 23:2 28:7,9, 94:19
application 9:3 10:6,18 attention
11:12 12:7,12 15 29:1
15:7 16:13 37:12,16,20, 17:24 18:6,12
40:21 24:14,15 28:1 26:21,25
29:4,12 31:8 22 87:3 89:3,
applications 8,23 46:9,12,13
34:11,15,22, 47:9 74:9,16
15:3 25 36:4,14 assessments
applied 15:3 88:9 84:7 86:16
42:12 54:4,7 87:12 95:25
62:19 88:5 55:19 56:3,5, assign 125:13
117:1 97:15 98:16,
24 58:21 assigned 20 110:13
applying 15:6 67:19 68:12, 125:22
appointed 139:21 140:3
13 70:7,19, assignment
99:6 21,25 71:10 attorney
65:17 14:11
apprehensive 73:12 76:13, assignments/
28:21 16 77:1,14, audibly 76:20
tests 96:14
approach 29:3 16,18 78:19, audit 60:25
assigns
127:6,7 20,22 80:18, 124:23 audited 61:6
approval 21 81:2 87:4, assimilate auditing
118:23 133:12 21 88:8,16 83:10 61:10
approved 89:21 94:8 August 6:5
assistant
105:14 96:22 97:1 48:14 52:18 21:2,6 60:10
approximately 108:25 118:2, August-
3,9,17 associate
14:23 15:5 5:16,20,22 september
20:16 21:4 119:18,19 113:12
122:12 123:1, 6:4 59:9
25:20 26:2,8 105:5 139:8 authoritative
79:15 107:19 3,6 126:18 143:6
APRC's 104:20 Associates
Apps 5:7 24:3,6 authorized
13:7,12 14:3, area 9:21 106:15 107:4
94:8 113:23 assume 93:20
4 27:21 32:7, 100:25 automatically
9,15 34:17,25 areas 27:9 130:15
63:9 assuming
35:5,8,13 116:22 average 79:20
36:5,9,14 arrangement 80:10,11,14,
41:18 44:2,6 34:1 45:8 assuring 51:7
19 81:8,10
48:1,3,5,9 89:17 93:21 147:13 148:5

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1180
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 159 of 182 PageID 1376
December 08, 2016 ·5
averages 80:1 132:18 blocks 132:16 capacity
aware 17:23 basis 8:1 board 12:22 30:3,6
18:1,2 58:7 24:23 37:13, 88:13 121:16 career 31:15
75:7 78:4 14 39:3,21 138:2 careers 52:17
89:24 105:12 77:10 93:6,14 body 57:10 careful 120:6
110:8 113:4 94:13,14 borderline caring 91:24
144:18 145:2, 99:18 105:19 85:24 86:1 Carl 5:10
15 115:20 124:13 91:2 carried 23:2
awareness basketball bother 49:2 28:10 122:25
94:17 117:20, 118:9 bothered
22 carrying
bearing 70:3 43:11 23:19,22
beg 32:5 bottom 42:4 123:3
B began 60:7 138:24 cars 67:8
79:7 break 32:6 case 5:17
back 12:6 begin 6:6 35:12,17 7:14 12:17
14:6 20:23 21:5,21 60:4 58:13 60:15, 28:4 29:24
31:22,24 148:9 18 83:17 30:1 56:21
34:11,21,23 beginning bring 8:13 57:12 58:24
35:11 36:2 21:22 60:10 110:25 65:4 67:7
37:22 38:18 63:1 broad 51:24 68:7 73:6
43:18 47:22 begins 21:4 broader 103:4 78:12 81:3
62:2 70:4 behalf 58:25 106:9,10
73:25 75:5 broadly
105:5 123:4 128:20 140:1 146:17
83:21 84:25 133:8 cases 65:18
85:21 89:4 brought 8:18,
behavior 6:25 24 12:1,6 74:7
94:24 95:3 7:5 8:24
109:24 110:7 busy 18:22 caused 38:5
29:13 73:22 62:6 67:9
111:25
114:14,15 behaviors 117:4,5
73:19 C cease 6:3
117:13,25
126:21 131:2, believed ceased 25:16
call 61:18
3,4 74:11,12 Center 85:24
82:5 102:23
background 75:14 141:1 chair 8:16
123:22
40:18 benefit 46:1 24:16
called 5:2
based 7:12 76:22 96:13 challenging
33:3 35:15
10:21 38:22 bet 72:9 40:16 63:4,5 22:12 41:14
54:17 56:9 bias 75:11 103:18,20 chance 30:8
57:3 61:23 big 66:19 104:5 39:2 55:12
63:12 68:23 120:1 calling 56:3 57:13
69:19 72:20 biggest 43:13 Calls 93:15 change 8:20
73:17 75:14 bit 20:13 campus 130:19 96:16 110:19,
77:16 78:1 21:2 22:21 candidacy 25 116:13
81:19 91:11 50:10,21 changed 12:7
16:15
93:8,12 109:7 107:12,20 21:1 63:3
141:6 143:20 candidate
120:6 97:19 98:8
15:2 16:14
basic 27:14 blended 63:11 charge 107:15
candy 59:22,
basically block 132:16 122:4
24
54:23 75:13

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1181
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 160 of 182 PageID 1377
December 08, 2016 ·6
check-in clearest colored 74:23 competence
116:5 33:12 comfortable 40:2,4
checked 43:23 clerkship 51:3 60:2 complete
checking 11:20,21 comment 10:14 31:21
120:7 21:21,24,25 47:11,12 34:2 38:24
chief 112:23 22:10 40:9 52:21 53:19 39:16,18,21
115:3,4 128:5,6,21,22 68:8 85:21 43:9 50:24
chose 58:11 clerkships 97:22 52:7,9 70:13
76:5 84:25 22:2 41:11 commented 96:13 126:21
144:10 128:8 131:20 67:17,19 137:14 146:8
circumstance clinical comments completed
11:15,18 23:7,15 52:11 141:6,8 18:20 20:12,
12:11 24:25 41:10,12 commitment 18 31:20 32:2
33:20 54:1 64:4,5,22 38:16 65:16 69:7,18
67:3 130:3,25 65:5,7,14,20 committee 126:9,25
circumstances 66:6,9 68:1,7 6:9,23 8:16 128:5,6,7
12:14 67:9 71:22,23 77:6 9:7,12 24:17 129:22 130:8
94:9 78:6,17 81:8 30:2,9 32:22 131:6 134:1
82:13 83:12, 34:12 36:24 137:7,11
claim 48:21 148:8
15 102:22 38:14,17
clarify 74:10 103:7,9,12 completely
117:21 41:25 43:8
104:9,13 54:19 58:4 141:23
clarity 26:4 124:25 125:21 completing
48:4,19 62:7 73:14,15
129:5 142:2 99:7,24 20:15,17
clarity's clinically 30:10 43:17
113:16 108:23 109:20
63:13 81:19 110:13,19 69:11 132:22
class 7:17 82:9,20 completion
118:6,7
60:4 79:20 clinically- 123:7,9 33:1 38:20
106:4,5 124:3 based 81:16 138:17 40:25 62:10
147:13,24 clinician 140:13,21,25 69:15
148:2,5 81:20,24 comprehensive
149:21 common 68:24
clinics 22:6 69:1 130:18 13:25 28:7,15
classes 105:2 146:18 87:3 89:8
commonly
classical close 17:15 130:22,23 concept 63:21
122:21 87:16
closely 85:2 communication
classmates 42:23 50:6 concern 9:17
66:23,25 closer 130:20
closet 124:12 communications 10:3 26:25
147:21 38:23,25
cognitive 14:7 17:2,6,
classroom 13 39:14 40:25
61:13 123:24 141:11,18
compare 48:10 41:6 43:13
124:3 149:22 collaboration
compared 52:5,8 67:18
clear 12:4 106:15 107:3 81:16 82:11
17:21 30:2 123:12 10:10 23:13
124:3 83:13 88:16
31:6 36:1 collective 106:12
46:6 52:1 105:10 compelled 141:13,24
74:20 77:22 college 16:24 110:19
concerned
124:15 139:12 122:2 123:4,7 compelling 5:18 51:8
145:23 146:22 146:1 149:2 52:4 67:17

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1182
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 161 of 182 PageID 1378
December 08, 2016 ·7
concerns consulting converted 109:6,9,12
38:14,15 40:3 107:6 132:1 114:4,22
41:7 43:8 contact 17:15 converts 117:4 121:18,
62:6,10,11,13 20:4 130:16 22,25 123:14
70:13 72:6,7, contacted conveyed 12:5 124:21 126:3,
8 79:1 104:8 92:4 143:25 convince 10 129:16
125:10 142:17 contained 140:7,9 133:24 135:19
conclusion 88:18 copies 45:1 137:15 138:1,
93:16 112:7 content 9:21 49:16 13 146:9,13,
114:21 141:5 16:8 17:5 16,25 147:6,
copy 18:25 8,14 148:10,
conclusions 37:4 51:22 44:23 45:10,
114:5,12,14 61:24 63:8,10 13,16,25
12,13 47:23 149:8,11
condition 129:2,7,17 48:13,20
74:9,16 87:10 content-based 49:2,4,8,13, corrected
conduct 24:11 81:17 14 98:12 87:7 114:4,13
conducted contents 99:16 100:1 correcting
24:2 19:11 25:24 111:17 113:3 130:15
conduit context 23:6, 150:24 correctly
122:12 7 63:14 74:4 corporate 146:10,14
confirm 127:1 77:19 81:12 12:21 147:12 148:20
139:20 103:4 106:18 correct 6:11, 149:2,9,10,14
confirmed continue 17:1 19 7:10 8:4 cost 89:15
75:16 68:21 69:4 12:16 16:24, counseling
conflict 81:23 25 19:7 23:21 24:2 85:24
57:6,7 continued 24:12 26:9,14 count 108:7
confused 20:10 107:20 27:4,5 28:11 couple 22:22
114:21 continues 29:17 30:8 38:13 95:18
consent 7:12, 107:13 32:3,22,23 132:13 145:21
16 continuing 34:6 35:17, courses 10:24
69:1,4 79:11 20,22,24 11:1,17,18
consequences 36:18 39:7,13
139:13 contract 21:12,13 28:4
42:11,21 40:17 60:25
consideration 93:13,18,19 43:22 44:13
94:1 61:7,15,17,
70:1 73:2 45:2,22,24 20,22 63:9,
77:1 contractual 47:3 49:10, 16,18,19,23,
consistent 93:9,21 21,24 54:25 24 72:21,23
73:19 140:18 contributing 55:3 56:6,8, 78:24 79:3
consistently 105:11 11 57:17 81:14,17,19
67:18 139:14 conversation 60:9,16 63:2 118:19 125:5
constitute 14:8 19:16 65:9,25 66:11 136:3,7,20
103:2 26:5 56:9 69:9,13,16 144:22,23
constituted 114:16 115:6 76:24 77:5,8 145:2
118:22 123:6 116:3 125:11 79:5,9,12,23, coursework
constitutes 143:20 25 80:8 81:21 62:16,22 69:2
102:16 conversations 82:16 83:16 72:5 79:11
consult 14:10 30:18 85:21 89:20 COURT 101:20
142:23 112:1 115:10 92:25 94:7,21 108:4 150:25
116:4 125:9 96:1,11 100:7
104:23 105:25

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1183
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 162 of 182 PageID 1379
December 08, 2016 ·8
cover 61:21 dated 28:13 decided 68:12 definitive
144:4 38:7,10 44:18 decision 28:1 18:10 54:23
covered 68:14 71:3 36:17,21 55:1 110:18
102:12 144:3 75:24 96:19 41:25 42:25 123:12 149:15
coy 58:10 97:1 108:25 62:7,10,12 degree 43:18
craft 58:9 109:9 149:23 68:21 70:22 degrees 27:9
create 106:18 dates 54:13 72:19 73:9,15 delay 67:2,4,
created 38:25 81:2 96:23 92:13 112:22 9,24 112:13
68:8 97:7 117:24 122:24 113:5,6
dating 55:10 140:14,25 133:13
credit 69:11
109:7 decision-maker delayed 81:1
critical 72:8 143:23
101:2 day 51:16 112:11 133:18
96:24 decisions delaying
criticized 35:9 73:12
138:19 days 71:2 67:15
deadline 139:11 demonstrate
CROSS-
142:8 declined 40:2 82:17
EXAMINATION 147:25
145:18 deal 7:15 140:19
dealing 29:3 deemed 8:23 demonstrated
cultural 11:13
95:23 56:23 82:4 73:18
83:3 deficiencies denied 39:4
cumulatively 7:4,15 8:3
144:18 dean 5:16,20, 62:18 98:16,
22 6:4 7:1 29:2,22 30:9 19 120:24
curious 70:6 78:23
149:21 9:22 17:8 121:10,21,23
24:17 25:15, 127:1 122:9 123:11
curricular deficiency
20 38:3 126:5,13,15
147:1,2 42:14,17,19 8:12 9:3,4, deny 98:17
curriculum 51:20 52:2,23 11,18 28:2,3 123:16 125:17
19:24 22:11, 54:6 59:9 59:10 77:2 143:7
13 35:19 73:10 105:6 119:1 126:11
65:21,24 66:2 department
139:8 deficit 17:25 23:1
68:22 73:8 dean's 38:5 18:6,12 24:21
93:7 137:8 depended 24:6
99:6 138:17 26:21,25 depending
curriculums deaths 67:8 46:9,13
22:15 22:4
Deborah 120:5 57:21,22
cycle 132:5,7 74:9,16 84:7 depends 93:18
125:24 132:9
133:1 86:16 87:2,
debt 43:13, deposed
16,17 10,12 139:21
140:4 141:18 14:15,16
D December deposition
18:21 19:2,4, deficits
46:11 140:12 14:5
data 77:18 8 26:8 35:16
85:3,5 92:20 141:2,11,21, depression
45:21,23 46:8 47:5,8,
data-gathering 47:1,18 49:5 22
defined 22:1 14,20
71:24 74:14 86:3,18
107:1 derive 103:11
date 14:22 88:2 110:8
76:24 97:4,5 113:10,21 defines 10:22 describe 6:20
100:1 107:23 114:14,15,16 definition 21:23 63:7
108:1 114:19 37:13 112:8
decide 78:20
131:4 132:11

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1184
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 163 of 182 PageID 1380
December 08, 2016 ·9
deserved 82:6 83:12 disappointing 71:20 72:20,
62:15 differently 67:14 74:18 25 73:3 77:23
designated 126:7 disciplinarian 102:14
12:21 13:4,17 difficult 6:1 126:12,17,18,
33:22 11:11 146:11 discontinued 20 127:4
designating difficulties 107:17 141:7
13:18 30:4,12 46:12 discretion dismissed
designed 47:9 112:5 131:17 64:24 69:18,
23:25 difficulty discretionary 19 87:22
designee 10:25 15:17 131:18 102:17 127:2
12:21 17:19 31:7,23 discuss 9:22 131:8 133:10
desire 120:21 41:7 64:20,21 25:23 26:10 134:12
desires 57:3 140:2 141:17 56:3 59:10 dismissing
142:9 86:15,23,24 36:6
desk 59:22
direct 5:6 116:7 disorder
detail 102:19 17:25 139:22
determine 57:23,25 discussed 8:3
direction 19:1,5 26:4 dispensation
8:5,17 86:25 60:20
87:5 125:4 52:14 118:15 30:21 45:21
directly 58:8 49:10,12 52:5 dissatisfied
developing 143:21
81:23 72:22 91:25 53:6,13 56:1,
93:5 114:17 4 66:9 72:3 distinct 70:6
deviation 73:23 85:18
80:13 147:16 director 8:9, distraction
21 9:10 10:4, 103:9 18:13,16
148:2
17,19,20 12:6 discusses 19:21 46:1
diagnose 86:10,11 94:3 117:11,14
47:16 33:5 77:23,25
78:11 103:25 discussing 123:21 124:6,
diagnosed 14,18 149:20
105:7 106:18 17:17 86:5,8
17:24 100:22 125:12 144:23 107:21 diverse 5:24
134:18 145:6,9 discussion doctor 27:6
diagnosis directors 19:12 26:7 149:1
18:6 26:11 8:13 9:24 30:25 51:23,
46:13,17 doctoring
17:15 30:20 24 53:12 74:4 64:2,3,6,21
54:24 55:2,3 77:13,15 81:5,6 83:20
64:20 73:19 65:23 66:1,
78:6,11 115:23 16,18 69:8
74:24 78:18 103:24 104:21
82:7 83:12 discussions 77:6 78:7
118:18,25 141:6 81:7 103:18,
84:5,15,24 125:4,22
100:25 disease 63:15 19 104:5
130:9 143:23 dismiss 34:12 129:6
103:14,20 144:15
110:18 117:22 42:1 68:12 document 18:9
135:1,8 Disabilities 73:12 79:2 26:24 27:23
149:15 46:20,21 dismissal 38:2 41:19,
die 50:25 disability 10:17,18,21, 23,24 45:12
20:4 37:6 23 34:15 48:24 58:8
differ 138:23 46:23 58:1,7 67:16 89:24
difference 36:13,15
72:11 75:25 42:10,13 90:5 91:16
82:20 107:10 87:2,18 91:5 92:1 95:15,16
127:14 128:2 51:20 62:9
117:20 121:15 68:17,24 96:17 97:8,9
differential 142:23 69:14 70:5 98:10 99:3,

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1185
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 164 of 182 PageID 1381
December 08, 2016 ·10
12,17 101:1 51:12 101:22 emphasized 149:20
102:3 104:25 104:25 105:1, 85:19 equivalent
109:18,19,23 20,21 emphatic 35:21 79:10
110:3,8,12,17 earlier 12:19 125:15 equivocal
111:10,13,18 21:20 26:11 employed 5:11 18:7,8 26:11
113:2,11 30:19 35:18 end 22:10 46:7,10,15
114:17 42:23 60:7,8 66:21 69:3 85:22 86:1
documentation 72:21 75:8 88:2 93:1 91:3
33:16 74:12 76:10 95:19 96:8 128:11 equivocally
104:7 98:8 102:20 132:10,11,13 101:9
documented 107:21 111:18 134:20 135:24 error 111:7
62:18 79:1 112:1 142:17 140:11 147:25 essence 65:17
documents early 20:22 ended 130:2 essentially
33:23 45:1 21:2,3 93:4 132:15 49:9 87:18
49:17 55:10 110:1 113:14 endorse 89:2,18 130:6
75:15 91:24 easily 12:10 56:12,14 established
92:3 104:6,21 34:19 56:20 endorsed 24:7 39:23
112:25 61:5 73:14 56:15 etcetera
Donald 33:21 EBCR 66:5 endorsement 50:12 60:23
doubts 56:18 124:24,25 105:10 eval 54:14
57:4 EBM 123:17 ends 21:3
129:12 133:25 evaluated
downturn enjoy 146:18 23:20 85:23
25:18 134:11
enrolled 61:9 evaluation
dozen 16:5 ECBR 124:23 145:25 18:7 23:3
draft 59:2 125:3
enrollment 24:5,11 25:7,
drafted economic 147:11 25 37:17,23
58:22,25 25:18 148:15,24 43:20 53:11
105:9 education entail 29:24 55:17 88:17
drafting 24:17 46:19, 95:17 96:2,18
21 105:6 entailed
58:20 105:8 116:16 97:10 98:8
dream 50:11, educational 99:9,17,25
15:19 38:20 enter 27:17
22,25 64:25 95:11 100:2,3,5,16,
driven 56:24 45:3,6,10 18 101:8
49:19 62:3 101:12
drug 86:14 entering 109:2,8,9,13,
64:7 108:20 16 111:22
due 58:3 134:17 82:19,21,23
95:22 102:15 112:11 114:1,
effective entire 77:10
duly 5:3 24 115:7,24
83:11 106:5 128:22 122:3,8,17
duress 60:1 129:2,7
effects 47:8, 134:18 135:3,
duties 5:22 15 entitled 91:4 17 136:3
23:17 41:10 effort 30:4 124:8 149:7
dyslexia electives entry 14:23 evaluations
87:13 40:19 environment 25:11 43:24
18:14,16 44:1 107:14
element
E 128:24 19:21 46:2 112:19 113:12
117:11,14 114:24 121:14
elements 123:18,21
e-mail 42:5 64:17,23 149:4
43:19 50:8 124:6,14,19

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1186
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 165 of 182 PageID 1382
December 08, 2016 ·11
evaluator 131:7 133:25 120:10 133:4 extensions
55:13 134:11 137:17 144:14
evaluator's 135:11,17 142:11,12 extensive
55:11 150:10 149:10,23 73:9 137:21
event 116:14 examinations exhibits extensively
events 22:22 23:23 129:9 27:17 16:7 61:11
32:24 133:22,23 exist 63:22 extent 23:19
eventually examined 73:4 119:24 56:23 71:16
16:23 132:4, Examiners expect 14:9, 85:18 94:1
23 138:3 13 95:24
evidence examining expectation extenuating
100:24 123:12 83:11 35:2 45:17 11:14 12:11,
evidence-based exams 11:23 52:7 82:18 13 24:25 94:9
64:4,22 65:7, 12:3,8,10 98:1 109:11 extra 18:13
20 66:5,17, 22:10 30:16 111:11 26:12 46:16
20,24 68:1,4, 41:8 45:5 expectations 67:25 96:13
9,19 69:8 67:5,9 76:3,4 82:20,23 117:8
77:6 78:6,16 106:18,24,25 expected extracurricula
81:8 104:13, 128:13 80:18 81:22 r 16:12
14 105:18 129:10,23 113:13
124:25 125:21 135:9 142:15 expedience
143:14 F
129:5 131:7 92:12
evolution excellent experience fact 33:13
61:24 11:25 10:8 24:18 37:7 53:3
exact 26:23 exception 133:11 54:20,23
38:6 73:11 96:7 expert 75:1 70:10 72:20
150:14 exceptional expertise 90:14 106:10
exam 8:11 10:9 75:2 125:9 140:17
9:16 21:19 exclusively explain 148:3
42:19 67:3, 118:18 28:23,25 factor 101:2
22,24 68:19, excuse 144:12 explained factors 95:23
20 71:23 76:6 excused 67:2 12:2 28:8 facts 75:5
82:14 106:21 81:1 130:7 111:13 91:11,15
107:1,2,5 exhibit 13:8, exposed 31:2 factual 14:14
124:4 128:9, 10 27:18,19 61:3 91:7
10,11,15,16, 32:12,13
17,22 129:14, expressed faculty
36:9,10 38:10 67:19 142:17 22:22,24
24 130:1,3,7, 41:15,16
12 131:2,5,9, 143:19 23:5,17 27:16
44:3,4,18 expressing 33:22 35:11
11,13,14 48:6,7,10
133:9,15,16 104:8 67:19 82:18,
49:25 50:1 expressly 22 103:15
134:3,13 53:21,22
143:10,11,17, 107:6 130:20 141:9
65:1,2 70:15, 142:7,18
19,24 144:6 16 80:2,4 extended
147:23 149:17,19 144:9
89:5 95:11,12 fail 11:16
examination 98:23 101:14, extension
5:6 80:10 143:16,18 72:24 73:1
25 104:25 128:16
123:17 129:15 108:12 117:25

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1187
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 166 of 182 PageID 1383
December 08, 2016 ·12
failed 9:16 110:23 111:3, firm 24:3,4 122:3 123:21
11:1,3,22 4 113:23 fit 54:4 124:6,14,18
30:16 33:8 114:12 117:19 flexibility 149:20
34:10 39:11 135:21 141:16 142:6 frequently
68:3,4 73:6 136:11,24 Florida 5:12 67:15 73:23
86:14 128:21 149:23 39:25 88:12 freshman
129:12 federal 60:22 121:16 74:25
131:13,14 feel 47:2 focus 25:3 front 45:17
136:3 147:5 54:18 140:3 frustrated
148:11,19 feeling 38:17 144:5
focused 16:8
failing 28:4 51:1 75:3 40:13 74:2 full 5:8
39:12 72:20, 83:5 116:6 81:7 97:15 132:16
23 73:7 felt 19:25
128:17 136:1, folded 66:15,
29:9 36:25 16,18
12 52:11,21 G
follow 11:9,
failure 10:1, 53:20 62:14
16,23 36:16 15 12:16 gaps 71:22
83:24 106:13 71:25 72:12
131:24 72:16
143:1,19 follow-up
fair 74:13 144:1 Gary 24:3,5,7
102:17 104:19 36:13 115:6 gave 20:8
FERPA 90:7 foreign 60:1
117:18 121:12 37:12 49:19
file 49:23 forget 125:18
122:1 123:2 109:14 137:24
55:16,17
127:5 form 11:2 general 21:23
filed 49:22 16:21 149:17
fairly 79:25 58:11 62:21
76:2 91:4
100:2 formal 33:18 78:25 106:14,
files 71:10 55:23 17 127:6,7
familiar 6:8, final 11:23
11 61:4,14 formula 93:8 139:6
102:14 123:17 generally
95:14 124:23 forward 7:17
familiarity 8:14,18 17:5 20:25
125:18,21 40:18 94:4
31:4 126:12,17,18, found 112:14
family 67:8 four-year 116:16
20 127:4,14
father 12:3 146:4 generated
128:8
Fourteen 35:3
fault 48:3 finally 18:24
121:23 genuine 30:5
fax 44:15 finances
fourth 40:21, give 11:19
February 107:25
23 148:23 14:22 27:1
36:20 38:12 financial
150:16 52:24 53:8
39:6 41:25 25:17 38:15,
frame 12:9 56:20 57:13
42:6 44:16, 25 43:9,14
15:10 19:10 60:19 98:13
19,20 47:22, find 10:15
35:7 113:13 112:7 130:2
24 48:2 41:13 67:14
114:7,9 138:20 144:9
51:13,16,23 73:18
53:2,11 54:3 133:18 135:21 giving 112:24
fine 47:13 120:23 130:1
56:5 58:19 142:1 144:2
finish 21:18 good 5:8 12:9
60:12 62:8,9, 61:1 Frazier 92:2
12 75:12,23 free 18:14,16 13:1 16:13
90:11 96:21 finishes 42:22 74:3
21:16 19:21 22:8
97:1,3,4,7,13 46:1 107:15 77:25 80:22
107:19 108:25 finishing 117:11,14 85:10 95:1
35:16 108:8,9 116:6

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1188
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 167 of 182 PageID 1384
December 08, 2016 ·13
123:2 132:20 56:5,21 58:24 happened honing 40:13
grade 33:5 59:5 60:3 11:21 12:2 hours 22:6
79:14 80:6 62:8 64:25 18:24 39:6 41:12 48:11
103:17 104:16 69:11 70:3,15 43:3,4 49:13 147:1,2
125:6,7,10, 71:19 76:9,14 67:6 76:12 human 63:15
11,13,18 80:12 82:11 114:6 hundred 57:1
127:10,15,17, 86:13 88:22 happening hyperactive
20,21,23,25 89:10 93:2 34:7 47:16 17:25
128:1,3,4,13, 101:13 102:7 70:8 144:1,21 hyperactivity
16,17,19 104:2,12 hard 30:7
105:14 107:8 139:22
129:21 130:3, 53:7 73:15
5,14,16 108:19 111:3 124:1 136:16
131:12,15,19, 115:5,15 146:19 I
24 132:1,2 116:15 120:6, hard-working
147:21 9,23 121:6 30:5 idea 10:18
grades 28:4 132:21 133:22 30:22 41:5
head 76:19
29:5 76:24 137:16 138:23 50:25 70:4
115:2
77:4,9 81:7, 143:10 101:5 139:21
144:13,17 heading 150:8
9,12,14 144:24
124:23 125:4, guessing identical
126:5 healthcare 96:6
22 127:16 83:7 117:23
129:19 130:22 guide 33:23 identification
132:10,18,23, 143:2 hear 36:20 13:11 27:20
24 52:12,19 32:14 36:11
guidelines
grading 79:16 88:15,18,22, heard 25:17 41:17 44:5
25 54:7 75:9 48:8 50:2
graduation
10:14 hearings 53:23 65:3
141:7 70:17 80:5
granted 62:17 H
94:18 helped 15:6 95:13 98:24
helpful 101:15 102:1
grave 52:8 habit 52:23 121:19 108:13 120:11
gravely habits 17:18 133:5 137:18
129:24 helping 10:11
half 16:5 17:13 50:17 142:13
great 31:7 118:22,23 identified
32:7 49:25 HELPS 23:25
halfway 19:22 24:8 92:16
58:19 104:24 handbook high 139:10 identify
117:25 10:22 11:7,10 historical 92:18 106:6
121:12,19 12:13 88:19,
122:14,22 95:23,24 identifying
21,23,24 97:15 45:18
140:2 145:10 94:2,6 123:10
ground 14:1 histories ignore 106:13
handle 31:5 82:6 II 31:23
grounds 77:24 92:11
hold 130:1 34:4,10
group 105:18 handled 94:5,
honest 53:17 35:10,13
106:22 107:2 10
137:20 36:16 39:12,
guess 14:20 hands-on 82:4 15 60:4,7,25
15:8 26:6 honestly
hang 109:23 28:16 39:22 62:22,25 63:4
32:12 36:15 happen 34:9 64:14,18
40:25 43:3,24 41:20 53:13
113:15 130:24 100:13 65:8,10 66:1
44:11 54:3 134:5 141:25 69:11,18

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1189
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 168 of 182 PageID 1385
December 08, 2016 ·14
75:21 77:6,7 independent 21,24 111:12, internship
78:17 81:13 54:11 64:10 21 112:5 40:16
124:23,24 66:14 99:17 113:25 116:16 interpret
125:3,21 107:14 117:5 137:2 46:22 72:12
126:11 134:17 indicating 140:20 141:14 interrogate
135:18 76:1 109:2 142:1,9 120:2
136:12,13 indication informed 43:1 interrogatorie
137:8 143:14 26:23 27:1 139:1 s 102:3
146:10,15,24, 33:8,11,13 initial interrogatory
25 84:14 140:3 134:16,21 101:23 102:13
III 35:19 indicator 136:5,12 107:9 108:21
40:10 63:4 26:21 initially interviews
81:22 82:15 individual 29:13 57:24 40:22
146:14,22 7:19,20 141:8 intimately
147:2 13:23,24 initiated 145:1
ill 129:24 57:10 73:4 24:22 92:5 introduced
immediately 106:24 119:5 inquiry 18:23 110:9
44:21,22 122:13 146:7 instance
114:13 invasive 82:5
individually 142:14 invested
immunology 7:14 12:17 institute
27:5 63:10 56:18
78:14 117:14
impact 116:19 involve 107:2
individuals institution
implying 8:18 46:21 involved 5:24
24:18 93:20 8:16 22:4
126:6 118:14 instructions 23:9 38:16
important indulgence 72:1,12 107:5 39:23 58:20
19:13 88:11 32:5 integrate 88:4 99:5
100:21 122:23 info 49:11 82:9 102:5 105:8
139:11,12 54:22 integrated 106:7,22
improve 16:10 information 63:11 144:22 108:15 115:23
17:18 13:22,23,25 integrating 118:15
improvement 22:9 31:7 103:12 120:12,23
59:11 38:4 45:18 integration 126:1 139:10
inaccurate 48:25 49:1,12 83:15 103:8,9 144:24 145:1
111:21 52:3 54:9,17, involves
23 58:4,5 intelligent
Incidentally 140:1 42:13
48:19 62:14 63:13, irreverent
14 70:11 72:4 intense 22:10
inclined interact 83:9 108:11
140:15 74:6,21,23
75:13 84:1,3, interacting issue 26:10
Including 83:3 27:2 29:14
66:17 12,15 90:9
95:18,20,24 interactions 30:6,7 58:7
incomplete 96:22 97:15 73:17 83:7 81:1 87:13
129:20 98:1 99:1,6, 115:13,14
interest 57:7 119:1 131:18
incorporated 23 101:6 139:19
64:6 103:11 104:20 138:24 141:20
interested issued 130:4
increase 47:9 105:23 106:1 117:10
increased 108:17,22 issues 7:18,
internal 19 39:15
96:10 109:3 110:9, 40:15,16

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1190
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 169 of 182 PageID 1386
December 08, 2016 ·15
item 31:8 105:23 107:23 leave 33:19 licensing
items 81:15 111:12 136:1 60:12,25 21:19 133:9
IV 40:10,12 140:21 142:8 92:24 94:22 lieu 65:16
knowing 41:7 leaving 53:4 life 25:2
knowledge 82:21 50:12,22 53:9
J
30:9 45:19 lecture 61:9 67:3 75:8
January 19:9 71:22 72:17 led 24:18 light 62:14
20:15 35:3,8, 80:23 82:9 37:17 137:4 limit 140:22
23 36:3 45:23 83:10 86:24 left 25:17 lines 50:16
47:1,18 49:7 94:11 124:10 57:21 88:2 Lisa 13:8
74:14 86:4 Kumar 78:16 legal 93:15 Lisa's 76:22
Joanne 78:17 104:17,18 legitimacy
105:7,20 list 72:6
job 5:14,19, 41:21 76:15 118:14
120:3 125:24 legitimate
22 10:5 27:10 120:1
131:16 106:12 142:22
joke 108:8 listening
jokes 108:9 legitimately 38:15
joyfully L 144:12 lists 59:4
73:14 length 22:3,4 118:1
lack 30:4 lengths LISTSERV
judgments 46:16 102:21
75:2 137:21 105:2
139:22 letter 9:17
July 60:4,6, loans 60:22
lady 56:19 10:3 13:14
14 63:1 local 24:3
language 18:9 28:1,17,19,24
jumbling 48:5 26:25 46:15 logically
June 20:22 31:8 32:20,25 71:25 72:12
58:10 60:21 34:15 35:3
21:3,10,22 84:13 89:4,5 long 118:1
28:13 29:16 36:4,6,15 119:23 129:25
120:16 123:19 42:24 54:4,12
31:8 32:1 125:19 126:6 132:7
60:12,14 89:6 55:16 58:20
127:3 59:4 68:13, longer 87:25
large 27:15 14,17 70:19, 88:6
K 124:3 25 71:3 75:23 looked 85:5
lastly 113:22 79:1 81:15 loose 16:21
Kaplan 61:13, late 19:3 89:5 97:1 lot 14:24
14,18 149:22 20:22 68:15 105:9 108:24, 39:3 60:21
keeper 92:20 75:23 113:14 25 134:5,6 132:9 136:17
keeping 17:15 117:19 137:14 138:7, low 82:23
kind 7:16 9:3 lead 47:9 8,12,16 85:13,16
12:11 15:15 leadership 139:20 140:10 lower 89:15
16:21 24:1, 8:15 149:23 lucky 118:5
20,22 33:17 leading 87:20 letters 35:1 lunch 83:17
45:1 47:19 learned 95:10 38:7,8 58:21 94:24
53:5 73:22 59:1 luncheon 95:2
learning
87:1,18 93:21 level 51:19
28:8,15 29:1,
128:13 54:6 57:4
2 61:25 71:24 M
knew 15:23 72:13 87:4 74:8
19:17 49:1 88:9 89:3,8 liaison 6:2
62:13 74:18 made 8:21
103:13 licensed 9:6,19 11:25
95:8 104:17 117:23

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1191
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 170 of 182 PageID 1387
December 08, 2016 ·16
18:2,23 20:8 making 17:14 MD 7:8 17:3 medicine 5:15
25:16 30:2 48:15 92:13 42:1 107:15 6:22 11:22
35:10 36:24 mandated 126:12 127:6 15:13,14
48:21,25 49:8 39:24 131:8 137:8 16:24 36:7
51:8 52:1,11, manner 14:16 146:1 40:15,16,18
20 53:20 78:25 91:8 meaning 10:25 52:16 66:17,
55:23 56:10 94:10 83:6 92:1 20,24 68:4,9,
58:4 65:13 March 20:19, 106:22 113:14 19 69:8
67:2 75:7,22 20 21:6 35:23 127:21 104:14 105:18
78:5,12 79:2 68:13,15 meaningless 122:2 123:4,5
85:22 90:1 70:22,25 85:6 124:25 131:7
91:2,10,12 75:23,24 means 11:13 146:1 149:3
98:2 99:24 76:9,14,24 12:22 22:6 meet 7:21,25
108:22 112:22 87:24 96:19, 86:1 128:19 9:22 10:3
113:4 114:5 23 97:5,6,12 meant 85:16 28:19,22
117:24 118:17 99:1 116:25 124:1 51:15 59:9
119:2,5 131:3 126:21 135:22 82:24 84:17
mechanisms
141:8 144:11 136:11 94:24 128:9
147:17 149:3, 59:11
marked 13:10 140:22
5,6 med 15:16
27:19 32:13 65:21 meeting 8:15
Maher 62:3 36:10 41:16 28:12,14,16,
maintain 45:1 medical 10:9, 24 29:16,19,
44:4 48:7 13 11:8 14:24
107:13 50:1 53:22 20 36:22,23
15:2,6,18,25 37:2,3 53:2
maintained 65:2 70:16 16:9 17:6,12,
15:4 45:2 80:4 95:12 56:3,5,7
22 20:24 59:14,16 74:2
119:18 98:23 101:14, 22:1,14,17,
major 27:2 25 108:12 90:12 96:24
18,24 23:20 108:24 119:16
38:14 40:20 120:10 133:4 25:6,10 27:6,
41:7 63:7,9 137:17 142:12 9,11 30:13 meetings 6:13
83:13 master 140:20 31:15 33:3 7:22,23 8:2,
make 6:25 7:3 141:14 34:4,10 17 15:25 16:8
8:20 9:11,12, master's 35:10,13,19 28:18,21,22
13 10:4 12:14 15:11,19,21 36:16 40:1, 29:6 33:24,25
13:12 16:13 mastering 13,21 50:25 59:3,15 73:25
24:15 25:4 142:9 52:16 53:4 115:16,17,21
29:11 36:1 61:21 63:4,20 118:10,12
match 82:18
45:8 49:2 69:12 75:25 119:19
matching
53:18 73:16 76:7 93:11 member 6:12
116:12 22:24 23:5
75:1 77:13, 105:6 106:16
material
15,22,25 130:18 133:17 members 9:7
78:12 122:24 17:16 31:2,5 38:17 89:21
61:4 80:24 138:3
129:24 137:22 medically 118:2,3,8,23
139:2,11,17 141:24 144:4 119:13,18
matter 90:19 15:21
141:5 145:20, medication memory 112:1,
22 146:22 111:16
86:16 8 138:23
makes 40:22 maximum 38:19 mental 117:23
39:18,21 medications
41:13 75:17 143:1 mention 46:11
78:1 84:11,14 113:13
mentioned
108:9 110:11

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1192
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 171 of 182 PageID 1388
December 08, 2016 ·17
30:19 142:17 model 54:4 100:21 107:24 noticed 25:19
mentor 16:16 modification 113:4 117:18 126:8
mentoring 65:13 142:15 145:25 notwithstandin
16:21,22 modified 90:1 Nausheen's g 148:3
merit 73:5 118:21 76:15,25 November 19:3
met 14:20 modify 127:20 133:7 novice 82:18
15:8 22:21 molecular NBME 133:6,8, number 13:10
36:20 37:22 5:15 11 18:10 27:19
73:23 Monday 44:15 necessarily 30:16 32:13
Michael 22:19 Monroe 24:16 56:12 74:3 36:10 41:16
24:9 25:23 25:15 55:24 85:15 97:14 44:4 48:7
100:8,16 56:1,4,9 129:8 50:1 53:22
111:22 58:25 68:14 needed 10:7 57:15 59:9
microbiology 87:20 91:10, 25:5 45:7 60:3 61:12
27:5 63:10 12,15,16 52:2 116:12 62:2 65:2
mid 68:15 112:22 150:6 117:15 122:24 70:16 73:12
mid-february month 7:24 142:21 144:4 80:4 95:12
90:22 8:1,2,7 109:9 negative 96:25 98:23
115:17 135:5 47:15 101:14,23,25
Mihalopoulos 102:13 104:16
100:12 months 132:7, neurological
13 133:12 46:11 108:5,12,21
mind 12:9 120:10 121:20
52:19 80:22 moot 134:6,14 neuropsych
95:17 109:8 122:6,10
97:20 110:19 137:14 126:12 133:4
minimal 80:23 morning 5:8 neuropsychiatr
ic 109:2 137:17 142:12
minor 8:23 51:13 147:1 150:14
16:18 Morsani 6:21 neuropsycholog
ical 23:3 numbers 85:6,
minutes 16:24 36:6 7,8,9 121:6
119:19,21 motion 118:23 24:21 25:11,
24 42:19 numerically
145:21 multiple 81:9
16:20 23:20 53:10 85:3
misplaced 87:2,10 nurse 52:18
110:12 30:15,17 67:8
111:4 129:9 100:16 111:22
112:10,12 112:10 114:1
113:2 144:21 O
115:24 122:3,
missing 45:14 7,17 134:18
98:12 oath 32:10
N 135:17 149:4, 58:17 95:5
misstated 7
114:21 Objection
named 106:3 news 13:2 86:20 93:15
mistake 53:17 names 8:18 50:16,19
111:7,9,16 objections
118:14 nice 137:19 102:3 120:17
mistakenly National nodding 76:19
111:20 113:25 obligation
138:2 normal 60:18 38:25 43:9,15
mistakes nationally note 122:23
53:18 obtain 16:9,
10:12 23 17:13 28:7
notes 14:6
mix-up 114:1 Nausheen 119:22 88:8 89:2,7
116:14 14:17 30:1,11
notice 9:2,5 obtained
mixed 114:5, 56:7 59:18 47:23 48:13
13:8 145:14
11,13 86:3 92:6
146:19 49:23

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1193
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 172 of 182 PageID 1389
December 08, 2016 ·18
obtuse 58:3 optimizing parentheticall pattern 8:23
obvious 31:4 16:14 y 146:16 Pause 44:8
occasional option 43:5 parenting 101:16
15:25 16:2 131:16 145:15 75:1 pay 23:13
occasionally options 17:19 part 8:23 43:18 89:19
130:24 43:5 52:25 21:15,16 93:24
occasions 53:6,8 139:13 23:4,14,16 paying 23:12
22:22 30:14, order 133:16 40:20 45:11 25:11
15 73:24 140:22 146:7 64:7,21 65:5, pediatrics
occurred 150:23 14,21,23 11:22
111:10 126:21 organ 63:12 66:1,8,13,17 peers 67:21
occurrence organization 68:9 81:4 80:20 142:19
69:2 112:17 138:19,21 86:10 112:2 pending 7:18
139:23 116:3 129:19 71:8
October 137:19 138:6
113:15 original people 7:4
89:22 90:20 partial 112:1 15:17 40:13
offense 51:5
98:1,3,10 participate 50:16 51:4
offered 76:6 119:3,6
124:7 109:16 110:5 62:14 87:14
114:16 parts 11:22 91:23 116:11
office 45:3, 63:8 66:5
7,12 49:17,19 outcome 55:19 119:15 120:23
72:25 127:14 68:3 103:3 123:24 125:7
108:19,20
112:15 113:1 outset 146:6 pass 64:18 131:23 140:7
115:2,3,4 overcome 79:17 81:9 percent 10:13
119:16,24 141:1 128:15,16 57:1 79:24
overcoming 132:1,3,23 80:9,15
official 59:3 133:21 134:6,
88:25 92:19 140:12 percentage
7,9 93:6 94:13
117:22 119:21 overly 18:22
127:13 135:8 pass/fail 118:13
overrule 79:17
officio 6:12, 11:19 percentiles
15 119:13 passed 12:10 85:13
overseeing 39:11,15
one-and-a-half 5:25 perceptual
64:14 78:24 141:11
149:20 overview 128:10 131:10
one-half 145:23 perfectly
136:7,20 50:20
96:14 144:6
ongoing 64:5 perform 37:8
P passes 81:9 82:15
online 61:17, 129:10
19 P.M. 44:15 performance
passing 33:5 6:9,24 7:3,5
operate 118:7 packet 104:6 41:8 127:21
opinion 57:12 12:5 30:23
pages 118:1 past 111:21 32:21 38:22
opportunities paid 25:6 pathologist 47:15 69:20
15:19 paperwork 144:25 71:23 80:20
opportunity 130:7 pathology 81:18 82:13
12:9 13:3,13 paragraph 63:11 145:1 87:6 102:16
62:15 107:24 96:4 98:7 patient 83:11 103:4,6 104:9
128:11 131:11 paraphrased 106:24 128:20
patients 22:9
opted 124:20 90:14,18 72:9 82:4 140:18
83:3,9 147:23,25

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1194
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 173 of 182 PageID 1390
December 08, 2016 ·19
performed physician 99:14 113:16, prescriptive
78:2 147:20 86:23 122:7, 20 145:19 53:7 139:9,18
performing 10,21 150:20,22,24 present 29:8
19:24 148:5 physician's poor 87:15 91:7 98:7
period 15:23 52:18 102:15 103:3, 118:24 137:22
16:4 25:9 physicians 6 128:20 presentation
60:13 92:17, 82:2 140:18 9:12 36:24
19,20 94:20 pick-up 118:8 popular 15:20 37:5
103:23 112:20 place 26:2 position 6:6 presented
114:23 131:5 60:1,2 113:12 139:8 72:4 90:4,10,
141:15 142:10 123:13 139:24 possibility 13 91:6
periodic 141:7 74:17 98:20 presume
115:19 placeholder possibly 126:17
permitted 128:14 30:22 89:25 presuming
60:24 148:7 placement postpone 137:13
person 14:1 27:10 142:21 143:24 presumption
29:11 89:11, places 57:15 postponed 19:17 49:1
18 112:24 PLAINTIFF 5:3 142:15 134:4 137:12
123:24 124:13 plan 83:12 postponement pretty 7:25
127:21 129:10 150:9,16 29:12 59:1
144:17 planning 42:9
51:19 145:2 potentially 64:10 73:9
person's 133:17 88:24 107:9
144:23 play 29:21
62:11 70:1 practical 108:1,6
personal 24:1 87:25 127:2 8:12 106:6 131:19 137:21
74:8 138:11 practice 24:8 previous
playing 16:16
personality 92:14 107:14, 24:18 41:4,
point 34:10
120:4 16 121:11,13, 23,24 44:18
59:20 70:9 51:15 84:5
persons 10:19 75:13 77:20 21,24 122:2
perspective 130:18 108:24
82:12 99:22
57:9 59:13 114:18,19 practitioner previously
pertaining 117:7 137:11 52:18 55:2 30:11 62:7,17
32:24 143:22 145:12 precise 11:15 91:15 110:13,
Ph.d. 5:2 14:22 14 113:24
pointed 86:10
27:3 122:19 precisely price 122:4
points 147:24
Ph.d.'s. 19:4 84:13 primarily
policies 10:5 23:10
27:16 88:12 predict 34:19
pharmacology 46:12 67:10
policy 68:23 premed 14:24 104:21 128:4
63:10 88:7,12 premeds 16:19
phone 22:23 principal
107:14,16 preparation
phrase 73:3 123:6
121:10,16,24 102:21
82:16 139:6 prior 14:23
prepare 14:5 18:2 42:24
physical Poole 13:19 15:16 65:17
64:20 71:23 56:5 68:18
34:21 36:1,8 prepared 31:5 69:14 70:5
78:18 82:13 47:25 71:7, preparing
103:14,20 97:8 109:20
11,13,15 22:9 120:13 144:13 150:18
physicals 83:19 86:20 prescribed
82:6 93:15 95:1 private 23:13
123:9 100:5,18

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1195
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 174 of 182 PageID 1391
December 08, 2016 ·20
135:17 professional providing quick 58:13
privately 6:25 7:5 9:3 96:21 107:14 145:20
97:10 100:4 117:23 121:14 122:2 quiz 105:18
Pro 94:15 professionalis provision quorum 118:22
probation m 7:3,19 149:3,5,6 quote 22:7
31:9,11,14, 101:22 104:24 psych 54:14
19,22,24 32:1 professionals 74:25
83:8 R
33:13,15 psychiatrist
57:16,24 professor 100:22 raised 10:19
72:23,24 5:15 psychiatry 26:11 30:21
73:1,6,7 program 7:9, 23:1 54:18 58:8
78:23 13 15:21 17:3 psychological rambling
problem 33:17 20:14 23:24, 24:2 74:25 140:7,8
58:14 64:6 25 24:8 38:21 psychologist range 79:24
65:5,14 66:9 40:5 42:1 22:25 24:5 80:15 148:1
68:7 83:2,6, 64:8 126:11, 54:10,11
8,9 86:13 12 127:6 ranged 51:24
psychologists rare 8:20
104:13,15 131:8 146:1,4 23:8
120:2 143:5 147:5 148:15 69:2
purpose 87:3 rata 94:15
144:20 programs 121:13
problems 10:15 63:4 rate 23:12
purposes
30:23 67:8 prohibited rates 10:14
12:23
95:25 97:15 107:6 123:12 rationale
98:16,20 pursuant
project 61:1
121:15
procedural 106:21,22 Ray 12:25
14:13 pursuing 53:5
107:2 13:16 14:3,8
procedure put 7:16,17 34:17 71:4
promoted 7:7 9:6 10:11
11:14 promotion 102:8 145:17
33:15 76:15
procedures 7:1,17 reach 141:5
83:11 123:23
82:5 proper 11:13 127:18 react 20:1
proceeded 12:9 putting read 18:25
83:1 proportion 145:13 46:18 81:15
proceedings 27:15 149:10 150:22
14:13 proposal reading 86:12
process 92:10 56:10 91:11 Q 105:12 114:17
125:5 139:1 Pross 33:6 readmission
qualify 46:19 56:10 57:15,
processing Pross's 33:6
74:5 87:13 quarters 23 62:11 88:6
protocol 63:17,21
112:5 11:13 76:10 99:5
proctor question readmitted
provide 23:11 56:22 74:10
112:23 25:4 57:19 101:4
88:10 95:9 109:1 117:19
proctor's provided 107:13 132:21
115:2,3,4 95:24 96:22 questions ready 27:21,
produced 97:14 104:22 12:18,24 22 32:17 44:6
34:24 108:17 32:17 44:7 50:3 53:24
producing 149:11,12,15, 62:21 145:17
108:15 17 150:2,4 reality 12:4

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1196
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 175 of 182 PageID 1392
December 08, 2016 ·21
reason 28:20 receptive recommending referred 24:4
40:24 45:4,13 30:10 10:21 25:10 46:4 66:8
58:6,11 59:23 recess 32:8 28:2 83:15 92:10
68:19 73:2,3 58:15 95:2 recommends 110:22
94:17 102:20, recognize 46:8 77:23 referring
21,24 112:16 9:18 27:23 reconsider 37:16,18
122:9,14 41:18 50:6 54:20 140:13, 53:15 60:7
131:15 133:9 104:25 25 79:3 83:14
reasonable recollection reconsideratio 95:22 113:5
98:4 70:2 107:23 n 91:13 122:7,12,21
reasoning 139:1 reconsidered 133:22 137:8
64:4,22 65:7, recollections 54:19 140:15,17
20 66:6 68:2 74:1 record 5:9 refers 100:25
71:23 77:7 recommend 33:18 59:3 reflect
78:7,17 81:8 9:24 10:6,17 77:20 83:20 127:13 139:5,
82:13 104:13 18:15 84:17 95:3 102:15 6
125:21 129:6 88:16 139:17 127:13,16,17 reflected
reasons 10:22 recommendation 140:18 81:14
24:25 25:17 7:1 8:21 recorded refund 92:5,
36:25 42:2 9:11,13,19, 76:25 127:12, 14,23 93:7,8
71:19 72:16 21,23 10:2 25 128:1 94:5,18
81:13 102:14 11:2 12:7 records 34:22 refunds 94:3,
recall 14:19, 20:5,7,8 112:19,23 9
20 19:4 26:15 24:14,15 119:17,18,23 regard 16:17
29:18 30:21 25:16 31:1 rectified 52:13
32:9,24 34:8 34:12 46:4 12:10 register
37:1,4 41:20 47:4 55:23 46:23
50:7,12 53:13 redo 65:15
77:14,16 78:1 117:15 registrar
55:12 58:16 79:2 84:23 reduced 23:12 8:8,16 9:2
66:14 67:1 85:4 90:20
79:13,21 84:2 122:4 44:12,25 45:9
91:12 96:9 59:2,5 76:13,
86:2,4 90:17, 117:8 119:2,5 reentering
18 91:11 30:23 14,25 92:10,
139:17 150:7 11,19 132:18
92:4,8,9 95:4 recommendation refer 16:14
96:23 98:7 23:24 24:10 registrar's
s 7:4 11:15 108:20 119:24
99:20 105:11 19:19 20:9 reference
107:19 108:15 42:16 53:25 regular 7:22,
45:15,20 46:6 23 24:23
114:2 116:18 78:5,8,12,19 57:23,25 58:3
147:19 150:5, 62:5 72:2 115:20 116:3
85:20 90:24
19 88:20 95:8 reinstate
96:4 98:2,3
receive 8:8 111:14 139:3 138:4,15 55:20
123:20 150:17 recommended 140:23 141:10 reinstated
received 9:15 18:12 147:18 36:25 52:6
18:25 75:18 19:20,21 referenced 54:21 70:4
92:23 136:24 26:12,18 100:19,20 rejected
150:9,16 46:25 55:19 101:18 149:23 69:17
receiving 89:1,13,18 referral relate 72:10
42:24 138:25 14:25 122:11, 121:4 141:17
18

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1197
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 176 of 182 PageID 1393
December 08, 2016 ·22
related 15:21 51:22 56:17 105:16 132:3 responded
29:14 37:6 67:6 84:12 representative 44:21
63:13 72:22 86:12 96:25 12:22 response
90:7 92:24 108:10 111:6 represented 102:5 106:9
93:5 107:25 115:12 116:9 139:25 107:8
114:3 126:16 129:14 146:14 request 20:3, responses
143:1 remembered 4 67:2 71:8 102:11 108:16
relates 41:23 74:2 114:20 75:22 92:5 responsibiliti
relation 6:21 reminds 43:19 113:3 133:7 es 6:16,23
relations repeat 11:2, 134:15 23:8,15 41:12
5:16 24 20:12 30:8 requested 142:2
relationship 31:3,18 62:25 67:4 92:9 responsibility
15:4 24:7 65:19 76:7 111:19 142:25 8:13 91:24
59:17 93:10 78:25 80:20 149:13 150:9, 92:2
99:4 130:20 117:12 135:9 15,17 responsible
relative 147:7,18,19 requesting 56:2 112:24
80:20 147:20 148:21 144:14 rest 130:19
relevant repeated require restricted
92:16,18 38:18 39:11 124:10,17 123:22 124:2
remain 31:19 70:10 81:12 required 7:6 restrictive
132:2 147:10 10:23 11:5,9, 123:17
remainder repeating 12 28:7 29:6 result 70:7
20:11 34:3 12:7 21:9 33:9 40:17 91:2
remediate 33:10 73:8 59:14,16 resulted
11:5,17 28:2 repeats 89:2,7,10 36:16 64:23
33:9 34:4 136:17 118:19,23 results 26:20
68:10 78:9 repetition 123:16 124:5, 28:21 42:18
128:21 129:2 19:23 7 128:14 56:2 85:24
131:25 report 18:14, 141:15 100:14,15,17
remediated 19,20,24 requirement 115:24
72:5 127:5,22 19:12,14,15, 89:9 123:1,3 resurfaced
129:1,4 17,18,19 130:14,15 70:12
remediating 20:1,9 26:3 requirements
47:6,7 54:14 retained
129:7 126:10 119:22,24
remediation 55:11 74:20, requiring
22 83:21 retake 17:22
11:3 68:18,25 88:8 128:11,15
69:4,7,15,22 84:11,14,19 reserved
96:6 97:4,5 retook 65:10
70:1 78:20 131:19
98:6 100:17 revealed
79:7 126:10 residency 75:11 97:25
127:1,9,10 103:15,16 40:22
128:14 129:5, 127:15,17 revelation
resolved 84:4
11 131:11,23 reportable 68:22
132:22 137:9 33:16 reverse
resource 126:19
remediations REPORTER 107:6
126:22 101:20 108:4 review 6:9,24
resources 7:2 13:3
remember 150:25
10:7,11 32:21 68:6
19:4,11 26:23 reports 33:24
100:14,15 respond 71:9 112:11 125:8
37:10 38:6 121:2

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1198
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 177 of 182 PageID 1394
December 08, 2016 ·23
137:24 scenario 101:3 106:16 135:16
reviewed 7:14 142:7 123:4 130:19 sentence
18:18 19:15 schedule 7:23 133:17 134:12 36:19 46:18
48:25 55:6 116:12 141:16 147:11 148:21 53:16 71:18,
76:15 85:1 scheduled 149:2,5,16 20 72:2 95:22
89:22 110:14 130:12 143:14 150:2 140:11
112:18 147:1,2 150:9 school's sentences
reviewing schedules 93:25 95:18
29:5 112:13 116:12 schools 10:9 separate 22:2
138:11 Schoenberg 22:17,18 40:1 65:17 127:9,
rigorous 18:7 19:15 science 27:9 10
40:11,12 22:20 23:11, 63:4 September
146:11,15,20 22 24:11 sciences 18:20 113:14
roads 15:20 25:24 28:10 15:22 27:14 series 59:15
role 6:18 37:18,22 33:3 34:4,10 served 6:11,
16:16 17:8 43:21,24 35:10,13,19 17
29:21,24 53:11 55:4 36:16 service 23:11
56:15,24 57:6 74:21 83:22 scientist services 5:25
87:20 88:1 84:4 97:18 27:8 20:4 46:20,23
145:5 98:1 99:19 scored 147:12 75:25 91:5
room 123:22, 100:9,16 SDS 145:15 142:23
23 124:2 109:3,16 secondary
111:22 113:4, session 131:3
roster 77:1 102:20,21,23 set 17:20
rotate 21:25 6 135:15
section 22:11 42:2,11
rotation 22:2 Schoenberg's 129:11 144:24 82:23 84:1
18:18 54:12
Roth 120:5 55:9 89:22 sections 108:15
125:24 63:11 Seventeen
112:10
roughly 5:18 school 6:22 secured 9:7 108:4
68:11 10:13 11:9 seek 15:18 seventy 79:22
route 144:10 14:24 15:2,6, 67:21 117:5 severe 10:17
routine 31:18 13,14,16,18, seeking 30:20 17:19
routinely 25 16:10 selective shadowing
82:7 106:24 17:22 18:2 61:10 74:1 82:2,3
rule 11:23 20:24 22:14, 112:8 sharing 92:1
39:23 106:14, 24 23:12 self-directed she'd 82:25
17 25:3,6,10 71:24 72:13 shifted 21:1
ruled 134:15 27:11 30:13, semesters short 32:6
rules 12:16 24 31:2,15 63:21 shorter 142:1
130:13 33:19 34:13 send 9:2,5 show 8:12
run 20:24 36:7 40:13,21 sending 105:4 119:19 132:3
runs 21:6 50:25 52:16 sense 11:25
53:5 60:22,23 showing 33:23
16:18 18:18 shows 113:11
61:21 63:20 26:12 55:5
S 65:21 69:12 sick 131:1
69:10 75:17
73:13 75:25 80:23 81:18 side 102:22
sake 113:16 76:7 89:19 significant
82:25 110:11
Sandra 104:1 93:12 94:19, 71:22 80:25
122:21 126:14
20 99:16 82:8 106:11

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1199
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 178 of 182 PageID 1395
December 08, 2016 ·24
116:19 source 103:10 spoken 22:23 49:23
similar 35:14 104:10,12 30:12 stellar 78:25
61:1 114:7,9 122:18,20 staff 22:25 step 21:19
simply 9:17 142:22 143:6 119:15 33:14 88:4,5
12:1 48:23 150:7 stakes 139:10 138:6
simultaneously sources standard steps 9:1
68:25 104:19,20 22:14 39:25 71:25 72:12
single 140:20 South 5:11 44:25 46:16 Steven 5:2,10
site 9:7 121:16 57:18,20,22 122:19
sits 59:2 space 123:22 65:18 80:13, Stevenson
sitting 106:2 124:2 22 92:14 92:2 105:4,5
speaking 147:16 148:2 125:8,9
situation
50:11,21 51:4 20:25 43:14 standardized 145:14 150:6
73:4,5 130:5 68:11 116:17 128:12 stills 61:25
six-year special 46:19 start 10:13 stimulant
140:22 56:3 60:19 21:5 109:20 86:5
124:18 133:16 stipulations
skills 61:25
62:4 71:23,24 specialists started 6:7 59:5,8
72:13 81:23 62:4 19:16 25:15 stock 52:14
82:12,14,17 specialties 108:10 117:17 104:1
103:12 22:1,4 starts 21:3, straight
slight 107:10 specialty 20 45:14 136:16
slowly 9:1 40:14 state 5:8 streamline
specific 39:24 52:19 138:20
small 123:23
80:21 115:12 88:11 126:25 strength
124:2 133:20
solving 64:6 specifically 37:14
14:19 74:22 stated 57:3 strengthen
65:5,14 66:10 114:2
68:7 139:16 15:1,7 40:17
Specter 5:2, statement stress-
sort 6:17 19:14 48:22
12:22 14:25 10 13:17 inducing
14:1,5 27:23 70:6 84:11 40:23
27:9 41:5 85:23 91:2
58:8 63:20 28:9 32:10 Strictly
58:17 95:4,15 106:12 134:8
72:6 75:16 94:13
122:19 137:25 138:11
79:22 82:2 147:17 stroke 12:3
87:9,16 speculate
states 50:20 strong 26:21
90:14,18 72:14 97:20,
23,24 74:22 96:8 27:1 38:16
105:24 111:7 73:2
115:25 119:14 speculation statistic
72:18 10:12 structure
143:13 145:5, 16:12 20:14
13,22 spelled 11:6, status 31:14,
16 121:15 129:14
sought 44:22 9
stay 52:16 struggle 25:1
47:19 117:16 spend 22:5
stayed 31:14 struggled
134:17 split 120:4 15:3 24:19
sounded 74:3 spoke 20:20 staying 31:1 70:12
sounds 32:7 47:17 74:13 Stefanie struggles
95:1 104:3 92:11 111:2, 100:12 17:10
3,4 125:16 Steiger 48:13

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1200
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 179 of 182 PageID 1396
December 08, 2016 ·25
struggling 7:2,7,11,15 subsequent summer 7:25
9:20 17:16 8:2,6 9:22 37:12,16 21:17 33:10
24:23 10:11,13 substantial summertime
student 5:21, 17:8,12 22:5,6 11:5
23,25 6:4,12, 21:17,24 substantially supervising
24,25 8:9 23:20 24:1,4, 23:22 104:5
9:9,16,18,19, 19,23 25:1 succeed 61:5 support 42:19
20 10:6,22,24 28:19,20,22 succeeding 119:15
11:3,6,10,16, 29:4,6,7,8, 22:12 supported
20,24,25 10,22 33:15 56:15
35:11 41:11 success 7:12
12:1,2,13 39:1 supportive
15:11 17:2,7 43:13 45:4,7
50:24 52:1, successful 55:22
18:11 20:4
25:5 28:3 15,23,24 53:8 7:2 10:7 suppose 45:14
57:8 59:23 17:21 38:5 48:6
29:5,9,13
30:3,5 31:18 62:4 63:14 39:2 51:25 Susan 33:6
65:12,18 52:3,6,15 sustain 36:17
33:19 42:12
43:12,13,16, 68:24 73:11, 53:1,9 56:19 41:25 62:7
13 75:9 76:15 68:18 69:22, sustained
17 45:25
46:19,22,23 80:20 82:7,23 25 81:20 62:9
56:16,25 88:8 93:10,11 133:14 137:9, sworn 5:3
57:8,9,21 105:17 106:2, 23 141:23
syllabus
59:10,19 3 107:15 successfully 65:1,7,11
60:18,22 67:5 112:19 114:20 19:24 20:12 66:4
68:20 75:25 121:14 122:3 31:19,21
43:10 50:24 symptoms 47:5
77:23 78:1,23 123:18,20 system 40:14
79:10 80:23 127:5 130:20 52:8 65:16
69:7 70:13 42:11 63:12
82:19,21 139:7,9,11,14 79:16 129:20
88:17,19,20, 146:17 72:4 126:9
23,24 91:5 study 12:9 128:6,7
93:24 94:2,6, 17:18 41:10, 131:10 133:21 T
18 95:23 13 61:24 134:1 137:13
96:13 103:16 67:25 130:2 148:8 taker 59:3
105:7 106:4 131:5 142:25 suffered takes 82:8
114:3 119:1, 146:21,23 141:18 taking 12:8
16 123:9 studying sufficient 46:1 67:22
125:10,18 17:17 21:19 110:25 130:2 86:15 87:20
126:6 127:7 22:8 41:8 144:3 103:1 130:7
128:5,9 stutter 120:8 sugarcoat 133:12 135:8
129:12 139:8 style 28:8,15 52:24 145:5 148:4
142:10,22 29:1 87:4 suggestion 149:18 150:11
145:3 149:12 88:9 89:3,8 144:11 talk 13:17
student's subject 42:5 summarize 16:19 28:14
7:13 8:14 91:14 47:4 50:4
submission 52:17 53:10
10:16 57:3,18 132:18 summarized
77:19 105:22 90:19 86:19 116:1
113:25 submit 130:9 138:9
submitted summary 85:3
students 5:25 90:5,9,25 talked 30:15
58:23 99:20 42:25 43:7
6:1,2,18,21 102:17

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1201
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 180 of 182 PageID 1397
December 08, 2016 ·26
52:10 53:3 Tetrault 62:3 28:13,24 48:12 111:4
109:13 133:18 thing 18:11 29:12 30:24 144:21 150:8,
talking 17:14 22:16 57:5 31:6,10 33:2 15
30:19 36:3 67:20 76:12 34:10,11 35:6 timing 37:10
39:5,8,9 77:13 82:2 38:19,20 38:6 42:21
53:19 78:10 88:11 97:22 39:2,10,16, 55:8
99:9 103:22 100:20 125:1, 18,21 40:3 title 5:14,19
110:1 111:8 19 145:12 41:9,13 42:10 today 12:24
113:17 121:5 things 6:10 46:16,24 47:2 14:9 33:3
136:11 143:10 8:22 11:9 48:20,21 98:13 121:5
144:2 13:25 16:12 51:18 52:13 today's 14:5
talks 66:5 17:11,17 53:4 59:25
61:2,7 64:5, told 12:25
Tampa 24:4 18:22 19:13 46:25 90:21
tandem 78:13 28:23 30:1 18 66:12,23,
24 67:22,25 tomorrow
taught 27:15 48:5 52:20 120:3
59:20 72:10 68:12 70:9
technique 74:11,15,19 tongue 48:5
61:23 85:2,9,12,19
86:23 87:14 75:19 77:4,20 top 41:13
telling 18:11 108:9 116:6,7 78:22 79:15, 98:7
90:18 120:25 121:1, 16 84:2,10,25 topic 113:23
term 16:21 2 134:4 86:16 87:21, topics 13:4,
26:22 46:14 139:25 142:22 22 90:11 14,16,18,20,
103:1,3 145:3,23 91:22 92:3, 21 61:21
126:17 127:4 thinking 16,18,20 93:6 total 40:5
130:8 43:15 72:11 94:13 96:10, tough 12:4
terms 17:9 76:9,23 90:11 13,14 98:17, traceable
46:6 57:11 127:3 18 101:4 105:22
76:13 81:23 thought 12:3 103:19 107:24
82:5,12 83:3 track 40:14
34:23 74:17 111:5,8,19
90:9 96:19 112:20 113:12 trained 47:12
75:10 86:13 training
129:15 107:20 136:7 114:7,9,18,19
terrible 51:1 115:25 117:7, 74:25 85:7,10
139:18 140:6, transcript
test 66:21,24 24 9 118:17,21
68:5 81:2 120:15 121:8 127:8,13,15,
thousand 15:9 128:15 129:24 18 128:1
96:10 104:14 93:1 135:23
124:6,11,18 130:2,14 132:3
three-year 131:7 132:5, transition
149:18
16:4 15,17 133:18 103:21
tested 18:5
threshold 135:2,8,21 transmission
testified 5:3 128:9 136:2,9,10, 113:2
testify 13:4 time 5:19,20 19,25 140:22 transmittal
testing 10:25 15:10 141:15 142:1,
18:13,15 111:10
16:1,5 17:11 10,25 143:22 transmitted
25:8,12 18:3,13,15 144:2,13
26:13,20 112:25
19:6,10,20, 146:21,23
103:2,6 treatment
22,25 20:3, 148:4 149:18,
104:15 46:8 47:5,19
10,15 21:1,21 19,20 150:16 72:9
tests 26:19 22:5,8 23:10, times 5:17
46:1 67:15 21 25:9 tremendous
16:5,20 22:23 82:20
106:15 26:12,17,19

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1202
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 181 of 182 PageID 1398
December 08, 2016 ·27
trouble 76:17 79:19 unintentionall Valeriano-
103:12 138:11 91:20 94:16, y 50:10 51:14 marcet 78:17
true 141:20 23 104:11 university 104:1,8
trustees 122:5 133:2 5:11,14 12:21 variety 67:9
12:23 88:13 135:13 137:1, 93:10,13,22 72:15 87:14
121:17 3,10 143:15 121:16 venue 10:10
tuition 92:5 144:16,19 124:10,17 verbally 43:2
93:24,25 94:3 148:18 149:25 130:13 verbatim
turn 49:17 ultimately unlike 130:19 50:14 90:24
66:4 64:23 66:15 unofficial verify 95:18
turnaround 69:6,10 72:19 33:14 106:1 114:19
113:14 92:2 134:9 unquote 22:8 134:13
148:22 unsatisfactory
turned 130:6 version 35:18
unable 140:19 81:11 103:17 83:24 89:22,
tutor 9:23
17:14 unchanged 127:8 23 90:2
98:9 unsuccessful 91:18,19
tutored
116:11 undergraduate 8:10 122:18
105:6 unsuccessfully versions
tutoring
17:12 116:7,8 underlying 15:4 91:21
149:11,12 87:5,8,9 unusual 11:18 versus 142:19
tutors 30:20 understand 54:1 67:20 vice 24:17
116:13 29:1 41:22 106:21 25:15,20
132:20 145:22 updated view 109:5
two- 16:4 146:6 147:9
two-fold 132:23 viewed 15:15
148:20 uphold 72:19
122:10 volition
understanding upholding
two-week 11:8 31:13 84:22
113:14 71:20 voluntarily
36:21 47:10
types 87:8 55:1 64:13,17 upset 50:10, 53:4
typical 9:14 68:2 69:6 15,19,21 vote 7:7
27:8,10 28:1 70:24 77:3 51:3,7,11 119:3,6,11,14
79:25 80:16 81:6 93:23 52:11,21 voted 36:17
142:9 96:2 99:23 53:20 111:6 41:25
typically 124:19 125:20 143:25 voting 6:15
7:24 8:8 129:6 139:12 USF 23:5 118:22
16:14 21:2 145:24 148:11 85:24 107:13,
29:8 35:9 15 146:1
understood W
52:15 132:16 112:3 146:10 149:2
146:4,25 147:12 149:2, USMLE 21:19
133:9 134:13 wait 114:4
9,14 136:7
underwent 138:6,12
U wanted 13:12
36:15 42:18 50:9
uh-huh 25:8 undue 142:18 V 51:13 59:19,
32:16 42:3,8 144:2 24 76:3
44:17 48:17 unequivocally vaguely 50:7 80:18,19
51:21 59:12 126:25 114:2 112:22 133:13
61:16 65:22 Valeriano warning
66:3 71:21 103:25 33:12,14,16,

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
A-1203
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Steven
Document 29-1 Specter
Filed 02/19/17 Page 182 of 182 PageID 1399
December 08, 2016 ·28
17 work 25:3 41:2,3,5,9,14 142:5 146:5,
ways 140:8 30:7 69:5 43:10 52:7,9 7,8 148:17
weak 69:20 83:2,6 91:24 60:4,7,25 149:1 150:11
87:6 118:7 139:6 61:2 62:22,25 yesterday
weave 63:12 worked 50:11, 63:8 64:7,14, 12:25 50:9
week 12:2 22 76:11 18 65:8,10, 51:14
21:4 22:7 102:8 139:7 12,21,23 66:1 young 15:17
41:12 56:8 working 30:3 67:11,12,13, 56:19
147:3 146:19 15 69:3,11,18
works 77:10 70:5,10,14
weeks 22:3,4 75:21 76:8 Z
131:1 132:12 95:10
workups 82:6 77:10 80:17
Wendy 48:13, 81:12,22 Zainulabeddin
14 49:23 worried 43:11 14:7,17,21
82:1,7,15,19,
Wheeler 33:21 worries 71:14 21,22,24 83:1 15:24 16:17
143:19,21 wound 34:7 93:25 109:21 19:1,5,16,22
144:17 145:13 write-up 68:6 113:17 115:20 23:3 24:10
Wheeler's writes 59:5 116:10 25:25 28:12
33:24 144:25 writing 117:13,16,17 31:11 32:21
whoever's 117:22 126:11 128:5, 33:4 36:4,22
118:9 12 131:20,22 37:21 41:8
written 34:14 42:1,6 45:21
wholistic 76:6 93:19,23 132:8,10,11,
72:21 13 133:16,22 47:19 48:16
104:7 136:19 50:9 57:16
winter 35:12, wrong 103:20 134:17,21,24
135:7,10,18 62:15 64:13
17 125:1 65:10,13
withdrawing wrote 125:1 136:2,6,12
137:8 140:21 66:22 67:4
30:22 133:7 68:3,12 69:7
withheld 142:6,16
143:5,14 73:18 78:7
48:21 74:21, 83:22 87:1,21
Y 146:10,11,14,
23 75:10 88:5 89:2
84:12,15 15,22,23,24,
year 7:1,8,18 25 147:2,4, 92:6 97:14
101:3 11:1,2,4,21 102:14 103:11
10,11,18,20,
withholding 16:20 17:21, 108:25 111:2,
95:19 101:5,6 25 148:4,8,9,
22 19:23 12,14,20,21, 8 113:24
woman 100:11 20:11,12,14, 23 150:15,18 115:6 123:16
wondering 15,17,18,21, 124:11 126:9
years 14:23
118:4 22 21:2,3,4, 129:4 131:6
15:5 20:24
Wood 24:3,5 10,12,13,16, 132:21 139:21
21:5 22:12
Wood's 24:7 17,18,21,24, 141:1 145:25
23:9 27:15
word 11:12 25 22:10,12 147:4 149:7
38:21,23
26:23 93:18 24:24 28:5 39:19 40:5,6, Zainulabeddin'
143:4 30:8,10,13, 7,8,24 41:4 s 17:24 37:5
words 30:3 17,22 31:3, 43:12 51:10 43:15 79:14
31:17 49:16 18,20,21,23 56:18 59:17 81:2
93:11 110:4 33:2,21 34:3, 67:5 73:8,11
122:23 126:17 4 38:18,24 75:1 82:10
140:24 39:11,12,15 103:21 116:10
40:9,10,11, 133:19 140:19
12,21,23

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT


(305) 373-8404
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1400

A-1204
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR TilE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FI ORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

NAUSHEENZAINULABEDDIN,

PlaintifT,

v. Case No.: 8-16-ev-oo63 -JSM-TGW

UNlVERSEfY OF SOUTII FLORIDA


BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

Defendant.

PI AINTIFF'S AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION


OF DR. STEVE\ SPECTER, INDIVIDl ALLY
AND AS DEFENDANT'S 30(B)(6) CORPORATE DESIGNEE
AMENDED AS TO DATE AND I OCATIO\l

To: Board of Trustees of the University of South Florida; Dr. Steven


Specter
c/o Ray Poole, Esq.
Constangy, Brooks, Srnith & Prophete, LL P

2oo W. Forsyth St., Suite oo i

Jacksonville, FL 32202-431

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that coniniencing at 9:oo p.rn., on

TilURSDAY, DECEMBER8, 2016 at 12got Bruce B. Downs Blvd., Room MDC

lol2, Tarnpa, Florida 336:2, the Plaintiff Nausbeen Zainulaheddin,through her

undersigned counsel, will take the deposition of Dr. Steven Specter, in his

individual capacity, and in his capacity as Corporate Designee of the Board of

Trustees of the University of South Florida, on oral exaniinationpursuant to

Rule 3o(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before Selafani Williarns
EXHIBIT (f)O

1
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 6 PageID 1401

A-1205
Court Reporters, officers authorized by law to administer oaths. This deposition

will continue fi-om hour to hour and day to day until completed.

Defendant'scounsel shall designate on the record, prior to the

comniencementof said deposition, the specific topics as to which Dr. Steven

Specter will provide testimony in the capacity of Defendant's Corporate

Designee.

In his capacity as 3o(b)(6) designee, Dr. Specter will answer questions as

to those of the following topics indicated by Defendant's counsel:

a. Defendant'sAnswers to Interrogatoriesand Responses to Requests for

Admissions, including all ruatters stated or alleged therein;

b. All decisions, deliberations, and conclusions pertaining to Nausheen

Zainulabeddin made by the Morsani College of Medicine's Academic

Performance Review Corunittee ("A PRC"), including all letters authored

by the APRC pertaining to Zainulaheddin and the provisions and

requirements of said letters;

e. The comprehensiveassessment of learning style that Zainulabeddin was

required to undergo by the APRC, as referenced in the letter from the

APRC to Zainulabeddin dated June , moto;

d. All matters pertaining to payment for the comprehensiveassessment of

learning style that Zainulabeddin was required to undergo by the APRC;

2
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 6 PageID 1402

A-1206
c. All policies of the University or the College of Medicine pertaining to the

required comprehensiveassessment of learning style that Zainulabeddin

was required to undergo by the APRC, including all policies pertaining

to the authority of the APRC to require such an examinationand all

policies pertaining to the duty of the University or the College of

Medicine to convey and/or interpret the results of said comprehensive

assessment;

f. Review of the results of said comprehensiveassessment of learning style

by Dr. Steven Specter and/or any other representativeof the Morsani

College of Medicine;

g. Review of the results of said comprehensiveassessinent of learning style

by any member(s) of the APRC;

b. Specific identification of the "new information made available to the

Committee which was not available to them at the previous meeting"

referred to in the letter from the APRC to Zainulabeddin dated February

21, 2OfI;

i. Events between February , 2ou and February 21, 2ou leading to the

A PRC's reconsiderationof Zainulabeddin's case and decision to

overturn the dismissal of Zainulabeddin from the Morsani College of

Medicine MD Program;

3
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 6 PageID 1403

A-1207
j. The APRC's reason(s) for placing Zainulaheddin on leave of absence in

the A PRC's letter to Zainulabeddin dated February 21, 2oxi;

k. The APRC's reason(s) for causing Zainulabeddin to rernain on acadernic

probation in the APRC's letter to Zainulaheddin dated February 2!, 2on;

l. Whether the relationship of MD students to the Morsani College of

Medicine is governed by contract, or whether any parts of the

relationship of MD students to the Morsani College of Medicine are

governed by contract;

m. Specific identification of any contract(s) belween the University of South

Florida and Nausbeen Zaitudabeddin,and the terrns and conditions of

any such contract(s);

n. All acconirnodations of disability provided to Zainulabeddin by the

Morsani College of Medicine, including the first and final dates upon

which said acconunodations were provided to Zainalabeddin;

o. Divergence(s) between the grades assigned to Zainulabeddin by Dr.

Frasier Stevenson and Dr. Michelle Estevez, as cornpared to grades

assigned to Zainulaheddin by other professors, instructors, perceptors

and/or other faculty of Morsani College of Medicine;

p. Zainulabeddin's successful rentediation of acadentic deficiencies and

completion of Year Two of the Morsani College of Medicine Medical

Doctor Program in March, April and May of 2or3;

4
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 6 PageID 1404

A-1208
q. Rationale for denyit.ig Zainulabe<kiinreadmission to the Morsani College

of Medicine following her successful remediation of'academie

deficiences and completion of Year Two of the Morsani College of

Medicine Medical Doctor Program;

r. Specific identification of any academie deficiency or deficiencies of

Zainulabeddin supporting the APRC decision to dismiss her from the

Morsani College of Medicine on March 14, 2or3;

s. Specific identification of any academie deficiency or deficiencies of

Zainulabeddin leading to the A PRC's decision to review her progress in

March 2or3;

t. hvegularities in testing and assignmentof grades in Evidence Based

Clinical Reasoning fl in Spring of 20:3;

u. Differential treatment of repeating students by Michelle Estevez and

other Morsani College of Medicine faculty, including imposition of

different and/or higher standards for repeating students;

v. Reasons for denial (including partial denial) of any request for

reimbursementof tuition made by Zainulabeddin; and

w. EITects of academic probation status and/or repeating student status on

MD students known to have disabilities at Morsani College of Medicine.

5
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 6 PageID 1405

A-1209
Said deposition is to be taken for disc<wery purposes, for use as evidence

at trial, or both, and for all other purposes authorized by the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence.

Queries regardingaccommodationof disabilities should be sent to

Stanley R. Apps, Esq., prior to the scheduled deposition date.

PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.

DATED the th of Deceniber, 2or6.

RespectfullySubmitted for Stanley R. Apps, P.A.:

/s/ Stanley R. Apps

Stanley Apps, Esq.


R.
FL Bar. No. oro8868
ig5o Elkhorn Ct., Unit #14;
San Mateo, CA 94403
(3io) 09-3966
stan.apps@gmail.corn
Attornq for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December ,, 2or6, I serve<l the foregoing

electronically on Defendant'scounsel at the following address:

Ray Poole, Esg. John Dickinson, Esq.


rpoole@constangy.com jdickinson@constangy.com

/s/ SLanley R. Apps

6
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1406

June 7, 2010

Nausheen Zainulabeddin y,
4003 S Westshore Blvd, Apt 3403 1
Tampa, FL 33611

Dear Ms. Zainulabeddin: A-1210


The Academic Performance Review Committee (APRC) met on June 3, 2010, to review
your (F) Failing
grades in Physical Diagnosis and Physiology. The Committee is also aware of your
I
deficiencies in the
Medical Neuroscience and Introduction to Behavioral Medicine courses. Based upon
faculty
recommendations, the Committee voted to allow you to remediate these deficiencies with the following
stipulations:

1. You are required to repeat Year I in its entirety with the class of 2014
beginning August 2,
2010.
2. You are required to meet with the Associate Dean for Student Affairs to discuss methods to
improve your academic performance.
3. You are required to obtain a comprehensive assessment of your learning style
as will be
explained to you by Dr. Specter.
4. You must select an academic advisor. Please notify Dr. Specter of your choice within 30 days.
You should meet with your academic advisor monthly throughout the year until your
successful completion of Year I. Your advisor must submit a report to the Associate Dean for
Student Affairs after every meeting. It is your responsibility to schedule appointments with
your advisor.
5. You have been placed on academic probation.
6. Any further deficiencies will result in additional action by this Committee.

You must sign this letter indicating your decision regarding this action and return it within ten (10)
working
days of receipt. A postage-paid envelope has been provided for your convenience.

A copy of the Medical Student Advancement Policies, Procedures and Due Process is
available online on
the Student Affairs website at http://hsc.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/D6549138-8589-4F57-90EA-
F44F7C8A0706/0/StudentHandbook.pdf.You are advised to review these policies and note the
procedures regarding APRC actions, as well as actions that may be taken by the APRC if future academic
deficiencies occur. If you require assistance or advice in any regard, please contact Dr. Steven Specter,
Associate Dean for Student Affairs at 974-2068. If can help you in any way, please feel free to contact
I

me.

Sincerely,

Alicia D. H. Monroe, MD
Chair, Academic Performance Review Committee
c $
c..
Vice Dean for Educational Affairs
College of Medicine

cc: Stephen Klasko, MD, MBA, Dean, College of Medicine


Steven Specter, PhD, Associate Dean for Student Affairs
g EXHIBIT
Marrissa Cook, Registrar rn
Michelle Williamson, Director of Financial Aid

FFICE F THE DEAN, EDUCATI NAL AFFAIRS * O LLEGE F MEDICINE


niversirv d Sotah Floada • 12901 Bruce B Downs Blvd , MDCS4 • Tampa FL 33612-4799
Cook 000568
(80) 974-7131 • FAX (810 974 2976
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1407
Nausheen Zainulabeddin,
A-1211
Page 2 of 2
June 7, 2010

Signed: Date:

CHECK ON

I will: '
/ accept the decision of the Committee as outlined above.

appeal the decision of the Committee. A written request of appeal will be forwarded to
the Office of Student Affairs within ten (10) working days of receipt of this letter.

Cook 000569
I

Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1408

October 11, 2011 HE ALT H


Nausheen Zainulabeddin
8255 Hidden River Pkwy, Apt 306
A-1212
Tampa, FL 33637

Dear Ms. Zainulabeddin:

The Academic Performance Review Committee (APRC) met on October 6, 2011, to review your (F)
Failing grade in Medical Sciences I. The Committee was informed that you did not achieve a passing
score on the four examinations given in the course. Based upon faculty recommendations, the Committee
voted to allow you to remediate this deficiency with the following stipulations:

1 Pending the successful completion of the remainder of your Year il courses, you are required
to remediate Medical Sciences I. Please contact Dr. Pross to arrange your remediation.
2. Your academic advisor of record is Dr. Donald Wheeler. You are required to continue meeting
with your academic advisor monthly until your successful completion of Year II. Your advisor
must submit a report to the Associate Dean for Student Affairs after each meeting.
3. You have been placed on academic warning.
4. All Year Il requirements must be met before progressing to Year lil
5. Any further deficiencies will result in additional action by this Committee.

You must sign this letter indicating your decision regarding this action and return it within ten (10) working
days of receipt. A postage-paid envelope has been provided for your convenience.

A copy of the Medical Student Advancement Policies, Procedures and Due Process is available online on
the Student Affairs website at http://hsc.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/D6549138-8589-4F57-90EA-
F44F7C8A0706/0/StudentHandbook.pdf. You are advised to review these policies and note the
procedures regarding APRC actions, as well as actions that may be taken by the APRC if future academic
deficiencies occur. If you require assistance or advice in any regard, please contact Dr. Steven Specter,
Associate Dean for Student Affairs at 974-2068. If can help you in any way, please feel free to contact
I

me.

Alicia D. H. Monroe, MD
Chair, Academic Performance Review Committee
Vice Dean for Educational Affairs
College of Medicine

cc: Stephen Klasko, MD, MBA, Dean, College of Medicine


Steven Specter, PhD, Associate Dean for Student Affairs
Marrissa Cook, MA, Registrar
EXHIBIT
Michelle Williamson, Director of Financial Aid

Page 1 of 2

Nausheen Zainulabeddin, Page 2 of 2 October 11, 2011


VICE PRESIDENT, USF HEALTH • DEAN, C LLEtìE F ÌVÍEDI INE
Unwer tv of South Rorida • 12901 Bruce B Downs RWJ. N1DC O2 • Tampa, FL 35612-4742
(813) 974-2196 • Fax (813) 974,3886 • www health usf.edu Cook000585
i
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1409

A-1213

CHECK ONE

I will: accept the decision of the Committee as outlined above.

appeal the decision of the Committee. A written request of appeal will be forwarded
to
the Office of Student Affairs within ten (10) working days of receipt of this letter.

Cook 000586
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1410

HEALTH
February 2012
A-1214
7,

Nausheen Zainulabeddin
8525 Hidden River Parkway, Apt 306
Tampa, FL 33637

Dear Ms. Zainulabeddin:

The Academic Performance Review Committee (APRC) met on February 2, 2012, to hear your appeal of
the decision to dismiss you from the Morsani College of Medicine MD program. After listening to your
appeal and careful deliberation, the Committee voted to sustain its original decision to dismiss you from
MD program.

You must sign this letter indicating your decision regarding this action and return it within ten (10) working
days of receipt. A postage-paid envelope has been provided for your convenience.

A copy of the Medical Student Advancement Policies, Procedures and Due Process is available online on
the Student Affairs website at http://hsc.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/D6549138-8589-4F57-90EA-
F44F7C8A0706/0/StudentHandbook.pdf. You are advised to review these policies and note the
procedures regarding APRC actions. If you require assistance or advice in any regard, please contact Dr.
Steven Specter, Associate Dean for Student Affairs at 974-2068. If can help you in any way, please feel
I

free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Alicia D. H. Monroe, MD
Chair, Academic Performance Review Committee
Vice Dean for Educational Affairs
Morsani College of Medicine

cc: Stephen Klasko, MD, MBA, Dean, Morsani College of Medicine


Steven Specter, PhD, Associate Dean for Student Affairs 59 c
Marrissa Cook, MA, Registrar
Michelle Williamson, Director of Financial Aid

Signed: Date: Te b 10 20 2-

CHECK ONE

I will: accept the decision of the Committee as outlined above.

appeal the decision of the Committee to the Dean of the College of Medicine. A written
request of appeal will be forwarded to the Office of Student Affairs within ten (10) working
days of receipt of this letter.

Ti w DEAN, EDUCATI NAL AFFAÍRS * C LLEGE OF ÀÍEDICINE


th Florida • 12901 Bruce B Downs Blvd., MDC54 • Tampa, FL BM2-4799
Cook000547
RE: Case
2nd Appeal 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW
Zainulabeddin,
-
Nausheen Document 29-6 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1411
7/13/16, 12:44 PM

RE: 2nd Appeal A-1215


Zainulabeddin, Nausheen
Mon 2/6/2012 1:05 PM

To Specter, Steven <sspecter@health.ustedu>

Dear Dr. Specter,


It was Dr. Schoenberg. Thanks

Nausheen Zainulabeddin

From: Specter, Steven


Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 1:02 PM
To: Zainulabeddin, Nausheen
Subject: RE: 2nd Appeal

I am trying to locate a copy. Can you remind me who did the evaluation for you.

Steven Specter, Ph.D.


Associate Dean for Student Affairs
Professor, Molecular Medicine
University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine

-----Original Message-----
From: Zainulabeddin, Nausheen
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 10:04 AM
To: Specter, Steven
Subject: 2nd Appeal

Dear Dr. Specter,

I about the second appeal and she helped me through the thought process. wanted to know if can get the
talk to Skalkos I I

results of my neuropsych exam from you. After get the results will either go to Student counseling services or Helps associates
I I

and have them help me interpret the results. am in the process of gathering all the information from the Student counseling
I

services in terms of my dates, scores for ADHD and etc.

Thank You

Nausheen Zainulabeddin EXHIBIT þÐ


g

https://outlook.office.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageltem&lteml...lowWuke%2FJAABLGeDIAAA%3D&lsPrintView=1&wid=85&ispopout=1&path= Page1of 1
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-7 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1412
Page 1 of 1

Hi Dr. Specter, A-1216


Here is the scanned report for Nausheen Zainulabeddin.
Thank you,

Wendij Steiger
Assistant Registrar, USF Morsani College of Medicine
12901 Bruce B Downs Blvd MDC 32
Tampa, FL 33612-4799
Room: MDA 1047
Phone: (813)974-4089
Fax: (813)974-4619
Email: wsteiger ûlhealth.usf.edu

EXHIBIT(J>O

mhtml:file://C:\Users\rooole\Annnata\Local\Temn\Temnmm\ttomy
tasscuscaona i a mmna
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-7 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 6 PageID 1413
From: North Psychiatry -
(813)97+8900 Page 3 of Sent On: 01:32 PM, Monday, February 06, 20 12

A-1217
7

Patient Name: NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN


Medical Record:1719318
Date of Birth: Jul 03, 1984
Encounter Date: Aug 6 2010 1:00PM

RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Resume treatment for anxiety with goals of immediate symptom reduction as well as learning to reduce
worry/anxiety, ruminative thoughts/self depreciation, and cope with psychosocial stress.
a. If not currently receiving psychological treatment, cognitive-behavioralpsychological treatment
recommended. Cognitive-behavioralpsychological treatment for anxiety and depression is recommended.
This may include learnmg relaxation strategies and thought stopping techniques to reduce tendency to worry
excessively. May also assist her reduce self-depreciation.
b. Consider initiation of pharmacological treatment for symptoms of anxiety. Consider psychiatrie evaluation.
c. Monitoring is recommended for increased symptoms.
2. This student has neuropsychological deficits with primarily attention difficulties. The student should qualify for
special education services through the Americans with Disabilities Act and hdividuals with Individualswith
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Additionally, her English vocabularly was average compared to US
age-matched peers, but below expectations for individuals in the US with a Mastets degree.
a. Student is likely to benefitfrom taking tests in a dialraction free environment,
b. Recommend English as a second language tutoring. She may also benefit from continued English literature
courses,
c. If not already receiving tutoring, student will benefit from tutoring. It is suspected the student will not
complain of not understanding some words in English due to worry/concern she will be negatively evaluated
by peers/colleagues. Similarly, may not advise tutors/teachers she has trouble understanding concepts (due to
reduced English comprehension) due to fear of being negatively evaluated by peers/teachers. Tutoring for
classes for review strongly recommended.
d. If not already completed, consider mentorship by USF faculty member who speaks English as a second
language.
3. If ongoing academic problems/complaints, consider referralfor further neurological evaluation. She denied
visual or sensory/motor changes, headaches, dizziness, recent infections, or head injuries, surgeries, or
seizures/black outs. Sleep has worsened, with early awakening. While it is very likely her lower performances
reflect combination of anxiety/dysphoria, attention problems, and perhaps poor sleep, the very remote possiblity
for decline since early adulthood can not be absolutely ruled-out.
4. Re-evaluation following aggressive treatment for symptoms of anxiety and clear won y/rumination.

COMPLETE NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT


CURRENT COMPLAINTS AND HISTORY:
The following is based on the student's report.
L School Failure/Ddficulty with MCAT. She has taken the MCATs three times. She had difficulty on her verbal
component of the MCATs. She did not receive accommodations for taking the MCAT. She was concerned about her
ability to concentrate the 3rd time taking the MCATs, and she was evaluated for ADHD at the USF counseling
center Results were 'borderline.'However,psychologist thought her difficulties were related to anxiety.
Nevertheless, she was prescribed Adderal the summer of 2008, and took Adderal summer of'08 and '09. She also
took Adderal during the '09-'10 academic year. She did well the first year in a Mastera degree program with a GPA
of 3.73. She failed Gross Anatomy while taking Adderal, although she was simultaneously enrolled in a Masters
degree program at USF (prior to entering medical school). She passed the first block of medical school with an 81%.
However,she failed the 2nd block, failing Physiology and Physical Diagnosis classes in Spring of 2010. She is
repeating the 1st year of medical school 2010-11. She ascribed her academic problems to extensive family

Page 2 of 6

THE UNIVERSITY IS AN AFFIRMATIVEACTION/EQUAL OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION


Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-7 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 6 PageID 1414
From: North Psychiatry-(813)S74-8900
Page 4 of 7 Santon:01:32 PM Monday, February 06, 2012

A-1218
Patient Name: NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN
Medical Record:1719318
Date of Birth: Jul 03, 1984
Encounter Date: Aug 6 2010 1:00PM

difTiculties (sick family member) and personal relationship difficulties. These problems disrupted her concentration
and ability to study.
2. Attention and memory problems. Attention varies. She
sometimes has difficulty concentrating. She has little
confidence in her ability to succeed. She denied any attention problems in high school or
her undergraduate program.
Memory is good, and she generally denied forgetting recent details and appointments. She sometimes forgets to
bring assignments, but this is infrequent.
Anxiety/worry. She has always worried. Her worry has decreased when around peers that are not anxious. She is
3.

worrying about something. When she failed medical school, she worried frequently about being a failure. She
always
sometimes feels hopeless, overwhelmed,and frustrated at her life situation, but indicated this
has resolved following
being successful at a test this year. She tends to self-critique. Energy level is good. She is working out about
1-2
hours daily. Appetite is good. Sleep is ok, but she wakes up early. No recent changes.

Medical and psychiatry history. ADHD (2008) and anxiety. No pharmacological treatment for anxiety. She was
enrolled in the HELPS program at USF Summer of 2010. She completed counseling for anxiety. Dr. Russell is
treatmg psychologist. She was born in Pakistan. First language is Urdu. She learned English at age 5 when she
moved to USA. She primarily speaks English with her siblings, and speaks Urdu with her parents. She feels
much
more comfortable speaking English than Urdu, and has to think hard about what to say when speaking
Urdu.
Developmentalhistory unremarkable. No clear attention problems in elementary school. She was an above average
student. She was enrolled in advanced placement classes in high school, and completed honors undergraduate
program at USF. Master's GPA=3.7. MCAT=26. She is independent in IADL s.

CURRENT MEDICATIONS:None.

MENTAL STATUS AND GENERAL CONSTITUTION:


Appearance: Well groomed. Appeared stated age. Of normal height and build.
Gait/station: Normal.
Ï obvious tremor observed.
AAOx4: Yes
Speech: Articulation and rate, rhythm, intonation, and prosody WNL.
Speech Content: Generally appropriate to context.
Speech Process· Organized and goal directed.
Mood: Anxious.
Affect: Consistent with mood.
Current Suicidal/Homicidal Ideation Plan or Intent: Denied
Hallucinations/Delusions: None
Judgment: Within normal limits
Insight: Within normal limits
Test Taking Behavior: Cooperative. Task engagement appeared affected by pronounced anxiety at times. Sti
is considered grossly valid.

ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES:
History Questionnaire; Clinical Interview; Sensory-Perceptual Exam; GroovedPegboard
test; Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test 2nd Ed. (WIAT-II); Wechsler Adult IntelligenceScale 46 Ed. (WAIS-IV); Symptom
-

Validity
-

Test; Trail Making Test, Parts A and B; Rey Auditory Verbal Memory Test;
Wechsler Memory Scale-46 Ed.
(WMS-IV); Boston Naming Test (BNT); Verbal Fluency Tests (Semantic and Letter); Rey-Osterrieth Complex
Page 3 of 6

THE UNIVERSITY IS AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONIEQUAL OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION


Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-7 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 6 PageID 1415
From: North Psychiatry (813)974-8900 Page S of Sent On: 01:32 PM, Monday, February 06. 2072
-

A-1219
7

Patient Name: NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN


Medical Record:1719318
Date of Birth: Jul 03, 1984
Encounter Date: Aug 6 2010 1:00PM

Figure Test; Ruff Figural Fluency Test; Stroop Color-Word


Test; Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST); Beck
Depression Inventory 2"* Ed. (BDI-II), Spielberger State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory(STAI).
-

Loriann Chambers, BA, administered and scored neuropsychological and psychological


tests under supervision. Dr.
Schoenberg completed interview, sensory-perceptual exam, and MSE.

SENSORYIMOTOR AND PERCEPTUAL FUNCTIONING:


of smell: Intact
Sense
EOM: Appeared grossly intact.
Visual fields: Grossly full to confrontation.
Light touch: Sensation intact in face and hands, and no extinction with bilateral simultaneous stimulation.
Auditory: Intact, bilaterally
Ideomotoraprazia: None
Finger agnosia: None
R/L orientation: Intact
Manual dexterity: Borderline with her right hand, and poor with her left hand.

NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING(See Appendix):


General Cogmtive: A prorated index of her general cognitive
function was low average compared to US
age-matched pt:ers (Full Scale=87, 19*%).Her
verbal general oognitive ability mdex was low average to average
(Verbal Comp.=89, 23*%). Prorated index of her
nonverbal general cognitive functioning was low average to
average (Percept. Reason.=86, 18*%).
Information processing speed: Scores were WNL. Hit rate reaction time was
WNL.
Academic Screening: Low average for word reading.
Reading comprehension was high average. Spelling was
average. Arithmetic skills were high average.
Attention: Variable. She repeated 7 digits forward and 4 digits
backward, which is WNL She perfonned poor to
average on focused and divided atttention tests. She had
more difficulty on tasks requiring more switching/working
memory. She performedwell on a sustained attention task.
Memory Test scores ranged from poor to superior compared to US age-matched peers.
Immediate (short-term) memory. Verbal Immediate memory was
poor for stories, but average to high average for
word-pairs, and superior for a word list. Visual Immediate memory was low
average to average.
Delayed memory. Verbal delayed memory was low average
for stories, but high average for word-pairs and
superior for a word list. Visual delayed memory was
average, although she had difficulty with a complex figure.
Recognition cues improvedrecall.
Language screening was functional, and her receptive and
expressive specch were grossly intact. Naming was below
US age-matched peers (BNT = 31/60). Comprehension
and repetition were grossly intact. Letter and semantic verbal
fluency scores were poor. No gross alexia or agraphia.
Visuoperceptual function was intact. Visuoconstructional skills were borderline Difficulty with complex
constructional tasks.
Executive function (e.g., abstract reasoning, sequencing, insight,
judgment): Insight and judgment appeared intact.
There was no gross behavioraldisinhibition or apathy.
Verbal reasoning was poor. Nonverbal reasoning was
average. Verbal fluency was poor. Figural fluency was
borderline. She performed well on a complex problem
solving, sequencing, and set-shifling task.

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PERSONALITY FUNCTIONING:

Page 4 of 6

THE UNIVERSITY IS AN AFFIRMATlVE ACTION/EOUAL OPPORTUNITY INSTlTUTiON


Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-7 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 6 PageID 1416
Frorn: North Psychiatry - (813)974-8900 Page 6 of Sent On: 01:32
7 PM, Monday, February 06, 2012

Patient Name: NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN


A-1220
Medical Record:1719318
Date of Birth: Jul 03, 1984
Encounter Date: Aug 6 2010 1:00PM

The patient completed the BDI-2 and STAL She endorsed mild symptoms of anxiety. She exhibited mild symptoms
of depression and anxiety.

Thank you for the opportunity to assist in the care of this pleasant patient. If I can provide
any additional assistance,
please do not hesitate to contact me at (813) 974-8900. Services included:
Neuropsychological evaluation (4.0 hours
including administering, scoring, interpretation and report writing). Psychometrician based neuropsychological
assessment (3.5 hours).

Sincerely,

Mike R. Schoenberg, Ph.D., ABPP


Board Certified in Clinical Neuropsychology
Licensed Psychologist

Cc: Steven Specter, PhD, Associate Dean for Student Affairs, U. of South Florida College of Medicine
Neuropsychology File
NxonorsrcaotocacAL DATA SamAxx
*INTERPRITATION OF SCORES SHOULD BE MADE WITH CAUTION AND W CONSULTATION WITH APPROPAIATE PROFESSIONALS*

Achievement Index ¾ile


WIAT-II Reading 84 14
WIAT-II Read. Comp. 111 77
WlAT-II Spelling 106 66
WIAT-IIArithmetic 112 79

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale 4* Ed.


Memory
-

Verbal Age SS %ile PerE Age SS %ile WMS-IV SS Index %ile


Voc 9 37 PC Aud. Mem. 37 95 37
Sim VP
5
Mem.
Vis. 38 96 39
Arthm 9 BD 6 9 Imm. Mem 34 89 23
DS 8 25 MR 9 T Det Mem. 7 10Z 55
Info 10 F PA Subtests SS %ile
Comp SS 10 50 LM I 14 5 5
Lt-# Coding 8 25 LM II 14 7 16
Factors Index %ile Quotient Index %ile VPA I 12 75
VCI 89 23 Full Scale^ 87 19 VPA II 14 13 84
PRI^
Designs I 37
MM 92 Designs II 63 10 50
PSI 94 VR I 36 8 25
VR II 33 11 63
RAVLT Raw %ile
Trial I 8 72
Trial 5 15 88
List B 6 36
Tria16 15 94
Trial 7 93

Page 5 of 6

THE UNIVERSITY ISAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL OPPORTONITY


INSTITUTION
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-7 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 6 PageID 1417
wn: Norih Psychiatry -(813)9744900 Page 7 of 7 Sent On o1:32 PM, Monday, February OS, 2012

A-1221
Patient Name: NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN
Medical Record:1719318
Date of Birth: Jul 03, 1984
Encounter Date: Aug 6 2010 1:00PM

Reog. T 74 False + 0

Attention Perceptual
Digit Fw. (act) /eile 38 Bck 4 %ile 16 ROCFT copy Raw %ile
CPT-II (T-sc) Om 47 Com 38 HR 49 Var 52 ROCFT delay Raw %ile
Stroop Word 87 %ile 14 Letter # span Line Risection Raw %ile
Raw Color 61 %ile 10 SS %ile
C/W 28 %ile 5

Trails Part A % Part B ¾ 4

Language Executive
Phonological Total ¾ile 5 RFFT Unique Designs %ile
Semantic Total 16 %ile 1 RFFT Error Ratio (raw) 0.054 ¾ile 43
Boston Naming Test Total %ile <t WCST Total Errors 7%ile
Auditory Naming Test Totai %ile WCST Pess. Errors 11 %ile 34

SensorgPerceptual and Motor (R/L) Mood


Tapping DH % NDH % BDI-II 6 GDS
G. Peg DH 67 % 7 NDH 90 ¾ <1 StAI State 43 %ile 77 Tratt 45 %ile 86
Note: 'Scores are based on US age-matched peers and adjusted for education and demographics in interpretation, ^

scores are prorated.

Electromcally signed by:Michael Schoenberg PHD Dec 17 2010 3:54PM EST Author

Page 6 of 6

THE UNIVERSITY IS AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL OPPORTUNITY INSTJTUTION


RE: Case
2nd Appeal 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW
Zainulabeddin,
- Nausheen Document 29-8 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1418
7/13/16, 12:44 PM

RE: 2nd Appeal


A-1221
Specter, Steven
Mon 2/6/2012 2:42 PM

Inbox

o Zainulabeddin, Nausheen <nzainula@health.ustedu>;

I have a copy of your Evaluation. You may pick it up at your convenience.

Steven Specter, Ph.D.


Associate Dean for Student Affairs
Professor, Molecular Medicine
University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine

-----Original Message-----
From: Zainulabeddin, Nausheen
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 10:04 AM
To: Specter, Steven
Subject: 2nd Appeal

Dear Dr Specter,

I about the second appeal and she helped me through the thought process. wanted to know if can get the
talk to Skalkos I I

results of my neuropsych exam from you. After get the results Iwill either go to Student counseling services or Helps associates
I

and have them help me interpret the results. am in the process of gathering all the information from the Student counseling
I

services in terms of my dates, scores for ADHD and etc.

Thank You

Nausheen Zainulabeddin

EXHIBIT

https://outlook.office.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageltem&lteml...Wuke%2FJAABLGa%2BXAAA%3D&lsPrintView=1&wid=71&ispopout=1&path= Page1of1
RE:From Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-9 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1419
Nausheen Zainulabeddin 3/14/14,11:02 AM

RE: From Nausheen Zainulabeddin


Specter,Steven A-1222
Sent:Thursday, February 09, 2012 10:00 AM
To: Zainulabeddin,Nausheen

Nausheen,

I assure you that you said nothing that upset me. I spoke with Dr. Skalkos this morning
and I know that she is working on your behalf also as an advocate.
Steven Specter, Ph.D.
Associate Dean for Student Affairs
Professor, Molecular Medicine
University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine

-----Original Message-----
From: Zainulabeddin, Nausheen
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 9:15 AN
To: Specter, Steven
Subject: From Nausheen Zainulabeddin

Dear Dr. Specter,

I wanted to apologize yesterday if I said anything unintentionally. upset


I was a bit
about the situation since my dream I have worked all my life for is on the line,
but I
acknowledge that it was an honest mistake and even angels make mistakes. Thank you for
guiding so well during the process and being my strongest guider in my medical career for
nearly a decade. You are more than a father to me.

Nausheen Zainulabeddin

72

https://webmail.health.usf.edulowa/?ae=ltem&t=lPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...owWuke%2fjAABLGa%2fbAAAj&a=Print&pspid= 1394809270283_852558272 Pagelofl


Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-10 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1420

A-1223
February 21, 2012

Nausheen Zainulabeddin
8525 Hidden River Parkway, Apt 306
HE ALT H
Tampa, FL 33637

Dear Ms. Zainulabeddin:

The Academic Performance Review Committee (APRC) met on February 16, 2012, to review its decision
on February 2, 2012 to sustain the decision on January 5, 2012, to dismiss you from the Morsani College
of Medicine MD program. Due to new information made available to the Committee which was not
available to them at the previous meeting, the Committee voted to overturn the decision to dismiss you
from the MD program and allow you to return to the curriculum according to the following stipulations:

1. You are required to repeat Year 11 in its entirety with the class of 2015 beginning on July 23, 2012.
2. You have been placed on a leave of absence effective February 16, 2012, through June 22, 2012.
3. You will be permitted to audit Year 11 courses during your leave of absence.
4. You must meet with the Associate Dean for Student Affairs to discuss this deficiency and
mechanisms for academic improvement.
5. Your academic advisor of record is Dr. Donald Wheeler. You must continue to meet with your
academic advisor monthly throughout the year until your successful completion of Year II. Your
advisor must submit a report to the Associate Dean for Student Affairs after every meeting.
6. In coordination with your academic advisor, Dr. Patricia Maher of the USF Counseling Center, Mr.
Phil Tetrault, and an academic tutor, you will create an organized approach to study for Year fl.
T You will continue your enrollment in the Kaplan Classroom Anywhere course to develop
successful strategies for:
a. Studying and developing integrative habits
b. Addressing your knowledge base gaps
8. You remain on academic probation.
9. All Year ll requirements must be met before progressing to Year ill.
10. Any further deficiencies will result in additional action by this Committee.

You must sign this letter indicating your decision regarding this action and return it within ten (10) working
days of receipt. A postage-paid envelope has been provided for your convenience.

A copy of the Medical Student Advancement Policies, Procedures and Due Process is available online on
the Student Affairs website at http://hsc.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/D6549138-8589-4F57-90EA-
F44F7C8A0706/0/StudentHandbook.pdf. You are advised to review these policies and note the
procedures regarding APRC actions. If you require assistance or advice in any regard, please contact Dr.
Steven Specter, Associate Dean for Student Affairs at 974-2068. If I can help you in any way, please feel
free to contact me.

Alicia D. H. Monroe, MD
Chair, Academic Performance Review Committee
Vice Dean for Educational Affairs
Morsani College of Medicine
EXHIBITg
cc: Stephen Klasko, MD, MBA, Dean, Morsani College of Medicine
Steven Specter, PhD, Associate Dean for Student Affairs
Marrissa Cook, MA, Registrar
Michelle Williamson, Director of Financial Aid E

FF E DE THE DEAN, EEXA:AT] NAL ÀFFAlRS * C LLEGE F


À/ÍEDK:lNE
University South Florida • [2901 Bruce ß.Lwns BlwL MDC54 • Tampa, FL M6l2 47¾ook000548
i
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-10 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1421

Nausheen Zainulabeddin, Page 2 of 2


A-1224 February 21, 2012

CHECK ONE

I will: accept the decision of the Committee as outlined above,

appeal the decision of the Committee. A written request of appeal will be forwarded to the
Office of Student Affairs within ten (10) working days of receipt of this letter.

Cook 000549
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-11 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID 1422

A-1225
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA
COLLEGE OF MEDICINE

Evidence-based Clinical Reasoning II


COURSE SYLLABUS

OLLEGE O

1956
E OF FLO

BMS 6837
Course Directors
Deborah Roth, DO &
Ambuj Kumar, Mb, MPH
EXHIBIT Q;>0

AY 2012-2013 10
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-11 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 17 PageID 1423
Evidence Based Clinical Reasoning II BMS 6837 AY 2012-2013

A-1226
Evidence Base Clinical Reasoning II (EBCR 2) Schedule
Course 5
Day, Date Time Topic Session Format
8:30 am to 10:00 Critical Appraisal Skills
Tuesday, August 14, 2012 . . Large Group Interactive
am (Diagnosis)
3:00 pm to 4:30 Critical Appraisal Skills
Thursday, August 23, 2012 Large Group Interactive
pm (Prognosis)
1:00 pm to 2:30 Critical Appraisal Skills
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 Large Group interactive
pm (Treatment)
10:00 am to 11:30
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Critical Appraisal Skills (Harms) Large Group Interactive
am

Tuesday, September 4, 2012 1:30 to 2:00 pm Intro to EBCR (CPS)


I Large Group

Small Group Problem


-

Tuesday, September 4, 2012 3:00 to 5:00 pm Clinical Problem Solving Case 1A


based learning

2:00 pm to 3:30 Critical Appraisal Skills


Friday, September 5, 2012 Large Group interactive
pm (Systematic Review)

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 i:00 to 3:00 pm EBM presentations Large Group

Small Group Problem


-

Thursday, September 6, 2012 3:00 to 5:00 pm Clinical Problem Solving Case 1A


based learning

Small Group Problem


-

Tuesday, September 11, 2012 3:00 to 5:00 pm Clinical Problem Solving Case 1B
based learning

Thursday, September 13 . . Small Group Problem


-

to 5:00 pm Problem Solving Case


'
3:00 Clinical 1B
2012 based learning

Small Group Problem


-

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:00 to 5:00 pm Clinical Problem Solving Case 1C
based learning

Thursday, September 20, Small Group Problem


-

3:00 to 5:00 pm Clinical Problem Solving Case 1C


2012 based learning

Small Group Problem


-

Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:00 to 5:00 pm Clinical Problem Solving Case 2A
based learning

Thursday, September 27, . . Small Group Problem


-

3:00 to 5:00 pm Clinical Problem Solving Case 2A


2012 based learning

4 |
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-11 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 17 PageID 1424
Evidence Based Clinical Reasoning II BMS 6837 AY 2012-2013

A-1227
Evidence Base Clinical Reasoning II (EBCR 2) Schedule
Course 6
Day, Date Time Topic Session Format

Clinical Problem Solving Case Small Group Problem


-

Tuesday, October 2, 2012 3:00 to 5:00 pm


2B based learning

Clinical Problem Solving Case Small Group Problem


-

Thursday, October 4, 2012 3:00 to 5:00 pm


2B based learning

Small Group Problem


-

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 3:00 to 5:00 pm Mid Term Evaluation


based learning

Guidelines (Grading the


Thursday, October 20, 2011 1:00 to 2:30 pm Large Group Interactive
strength of recommendations)
Small Group Problem
-

Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:00 to 5:00 pm Mid Term Evaluation


based learning
Clinical Problem Solving Case Small Group Problem
-

Tuesday, October 23, 2012 3:00 to 5:00 pm


3A based learning
Clinical Problem Solving Case Small Group Problem
-

Thursday, October 25, 2012 3:00 to 5:00 pm


3A based learning
Clinical Problem Solving Case Small Group Problem
-

Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:00 to 5:00 pm


3B based learning
Clinical Problem Solving Case Small Group Problem
-

Thursday, November 1, 2012 3:00 to 5:00 pm


3B based learning

Clinical Problem Solving Case Small Group Problem


-

Tuesday, November 6, 2012 3:00 to 5:00 pm


4A based learning

Clinical Problem Solving Case Small Group Problem


-

Thursday, November 8, 2012 3:00 to 5:00 pm


4A based learning

Clinical Problem Solving Case Small Group Problem


-

Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:00 to 5:00 pm


4B based learning

Clinical Problem Solving Case Small Group Problem


-

Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:00 to 5:00 pm


4B based learning

10:30 to 11:30 Guidelines Grading the


-

Monday, November 26, 2012 Large Group Interactive


am strength of recommendations
1:00 pm to 2:30 Principle of Decision Making
Thursday, December 6, 2012 Large Group Interactive
pm (Normative)
9.00 to 10.30 Principle of decision making
Friday, December 14, 2012 . Large Group Interactive
am (Descriptive)
9:00 to 10:30 Principle of Decision Making
Monday, December 17, 2012 Large Group Interactive
am (Prescriptive)

5
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.

I hereby certify that on (date) August 30, 2017 ,


APPELLANT APPENDICES OF VOLUMES I TO XI
a true and correct copy of the foregoing (title of filing) ,

with first class postage prepaid, has been (check one)

G deposited in the U.S. Mail G deposited in the prison’s


internal mailing system

and properly addressed to the persons whose names and addresses are listed below:

filed with the clerk of the USCA 11th circuit


and served a paper copy to attorneys on record
Ms. Lori Mans and Mr. John Dickinson
200 West Forsyth Street
Suite 1700 Jacksonville, FL 32202-4317

Your Name (please print) Your Signature

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

Вам также может понравиться