## Facts

- Raymond Robert Bleicher enrolled as a medical student at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and entered the Individual Advancement Program (IAP), which allowed up to three calendar years to complete the first two years of the curriculum, requiring completion by August 1984.
- In spring 1984, Bleicher took required pharmacology but sought an excused absence from the final exam due to personal problems and requested a makeup exam.
- The pharmacology final was a standardized “shelf” exam; the school informed him a makeup was not available.
- The school allowed Bleicher to substitute his raw pharmacology subsection score from the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) exam for the course final; the parties disputed whether this was his only alternative and who proposed it.
- Bleicher did not enroll in a summer 1984 remedial pharmacology course, but the school allowed him to take that course’s midterm and final within a four-hour period; he still did not earn a passing grade.
- Because pharmacology was required, the school treated the failure as “poor scholarship” and dismissed Bleicher in August 1984; internal reviews did not result in readmission.
- Bleicher sued in the Ohio Court of Claims for breach of contract and asserted state and federal constitutional claims for damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the medical school breached a contract with Bleicher or violated its Academic Performance Standards/Guidelines by dismissing him for failing pharmacology within the IAP timeframe.
2. Whether the Ohio Court of Claims had jurisdiction to award damages for alleged violations of the Ohio and United States Constitutions against a state university.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by excluding the deposition of a university witness offered by the school.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed judgment for the university on the breach-of-contract/guidelines claims.
- The appellate court held the Ohio Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction over Bleicher’s independent constitutional claims seeking money damages against the state university.
- The appellate court overruled the university’s cross-appeal, finding no reversible error in excluding the deposition.

## Legal Principles

- A student–public university relationship may have contract-like features grounded in published academic policies, but courts defer to academic judgments absent proof the institution acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or in bad faith, or breached a specific promised procedure.
- Failure of a required course may constitute “poor scholarship” warranting dismissal when consistent with the institution’s published academic standards and program deadlines.
- The Ohio Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate standalone state or federal constitutional claims for money damages against the state or its instrumentalities, including state universities.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the medical school’s dismissal decision as consistent with its academic standards and within its discretionary academic judgment, and it also ruled that constitutional damages claims against a state university fall outside the Ohio Court of Claims’ jurisdiction.


Bleicher v. Univ. of Cincinnati Coll. of Med., 78 Ohio App. 3d 302, 604 N.E.2d 783 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1992)