MORGANTOWN – A former West Virginia University medical student alleges in a federal lawsuit that the university discriminated against him because of his disabilities and ultimately dismissed him after requiring participation in a health monitoring program he said would cost $80,000 to $100,000.
The student, identified only as W.B., filed his complaint October 9 in federal court against the WVU Board of Governors, the university, its School of Medicine and the West Virginia Medical Professionals Health Program. The student seeks reinstatement, removal of adverse disciplinary findings, restoration of academic standing and credit, damages and attorneys’ fees.
The lawsuit alleges WVU suspended and dismissed the student despite his passing academic record, then imposed an unaffordable condition for his return after two university appeal officials overturned his initial dismissal.
“Despite two separate appellate officials determining that the original dismissal process was deficient and that plaintiff’s medical diagnoses had not been adequately considered, WVU subsequently made plaintiff’s participation in the WVMPHP a mandatory condition of return,” the complaint states.
W.B., a North Carolina resident, entered WVU’s medical school in 2021 as a member of the anticipated Class of 2025. According to the complaint, he completed approximately 131 credit hours, passed the first step of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination and passed 15 National Board of Medical Examiners subject exams. He also earned scholarships and research distinctions and participated in scholarly publications and presentations.
“At no time did plaintiff fail any course,” the complaint states, adding that he never became academically ineligible to continue in the medical curriculum.
The student had documented diagnoses of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, bipolar II disorder and anxiety-related conditions before enrolling, according to the lawsuit. WVU knew of those conditions and approved accommodations that included 50% additional examination time and reduced-distraction testing settings, the complaint says.
The university’s Committee on Academic and Professional Standards placed him on “professionalism watch” in May 2022, according to the filing. It removed him from that status in March 2023 after finding that he had satisfactory evaluations and no additional concerning peer evaluations, the lawsuit says.
The complaint traces the later disciplinary proceedings to the period after he criticized his family medicine clerkship and disclosed mental health struggles to university officials.
In a March 14, 2024, end-of-clerkship evaluation, the student reported a public discussion involving his personal life, faith, life choices and need for a dental appointment. The discussion left him feeling “uncomfortable and humiliated in front of [his] peers,” according to the complaint’s quotation of his evaluation.
“Despite expressing [his] discomfort and requesting to stop the conversation, [his] concerns were disregarded,” the evaluation said, as quoted in the lawsuit.
On April 23, 2024, the student received an email notifying him that the standards committee would meet the following day. The email referenced “extenuating circumstances about the failing grade,” although he had not failed any coursework, according to the complaint.
The committee met without him April 24 and suspended him the following day, placing him on professionalism probation, the lawsuit says. He alleges that officials did not adequately identify the accusations beforehand and relied on evaluations and other information he had not been allowed to review.
The university also required an on-site drug test, which he passed, and directed him to obtain medical, mental health and neuropsychiatric evaluations at his own expense, according to the filing.
Those evaluations did not conclude that he posed a danger to patients, university personnel, other students or the public, and did not recommend dismissal, the complaint alleges. Nevertheless, the committee dismissed him May 16, 2024, after allowing him to participate in approximately 10 minutes of a reconsideration meeting the previous day.
The student appealed. According to the lawsuit, Associate Vice President Louise Veselicky overturned the dismissal in July 2024 after determining that he should have received more notice and more detailed information about the allegations, and that additional incidents had been considered without adequate notice. She also concluded that his medical diagnoses may have affected the disciplinary outcome, the complaint says.
Associate Provost Richard Thomas agreed in September 2024 that the dismissal should be overturned and that the committee had not been informed of medical diagnoses that could have affected its decision, according to the filing. Both appeals conditioned reinstatement on participation in the West Virginia Medical Professionals Health Program.
The student alleges that he entered that process and attempted to comply but raised concerns about cost, transparency, confidentiality and procedural protections. An independent psychiatrist, Dr. J. Wesley Boyd, evaluated him and concluded that he was fit to continue medical school and did not require removal, according to the complaint.
The health program provided a “constantly fluctuating estimated cost” of $80,000 to $100,000 without a rationale or cost breakdown for required treatments, the lawsuit alleges. The student told both the university and the program that he could not afford to participate.
The program closed his file April 4, 2025, citing an inability to establish a viable plan moving forward, according to the complaint. WVU issued a notice of intent to dismiss him May 19 and a final dismissal decision May 28, the filing says.
The lawsuit alleges violations of constitutional due process protections, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, along with retaliation and breach of contract. It contends that WVU treated conduct associated with his documented disabilities – including tardiness, disorganization, attention difficulties and communication concerns – as disciplinary misconduct rather than adequately considering accommodations or other alternatives.
The complaint also says the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation into allegations involving his dismissal, probation and reinstatement conditions. That investigation remained ongoing when the complaint was filed, according to the lawsuit; the filing does not report a finding by the agency.
W.B. alleges that his exclusion cost him opportunities to take the second step of the medical licensing examination on time, participate in the residency matching process and enter the medical profession.
He is being represented by Elizabeth L. Stryker, Mary Pat Statler and Thomas Bullock of Bailey & Glasser and by W. Scott Hickerson and Bianca M. Guzman of Lowe Yeager & Browl in Knoxville, Tennessee. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Thomas Kleeh.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia case number 1:26-cv-00151
