Former Student Wins 13 Million Against For-profit

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by peacfulchaos2001, Jun 22, 2013.

Loading...
  1. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    I've never heard of this school but I'm assuming that the plaintiff had good evidence to present or she wouldn't have won her case. The appeal might lower the judgement but it would seem unlikely that the verdict would actually be reversed. Hopefully it's a bit of a wakeup call for everyone, schools and students alike.
     
  2. sideman

    sideman Well Known Member

    As always---buyer beware. Did the school misrepresent itself to the plaintiff? Probably. Did the plaintiff blindly follow the school's misrepresentation? Yes. Should the plaintiff researched her state's requirements for medical assistant before enrolling and acquiring the student loans? Definitely. There's blame enough to go around.
     
  3. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    These are the types of students predatory colleges like. She does deserve part of the blame, but uninformed students like her are probably the college's target market.
     
  4. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    I'm not sure that you really know this to be true. You're guessing. In any case the court clearly sided with the student and their "overpayment" makes it seem that the school's behavior was so egregious that severe damages were warranted.
     
  5. sideman

    sideman Well Known Member

    Take the word "blindly" out and I believe we have a factual statement with an affirmative answer. Another guess I'll dare to wager is is the punitive damages will be lowered on appeal. At any rate she should've just gotten enough to pay attorney's fees and pay off her student loans and expenses up to the point of trial.
     
  6. LGFlood

    LGFlood New Member

    While I would normally agree that the bulk of the blame should fall upon the student for inadequate research, it seems that in this case that it is indeed a matter of misrepresentation. It's not like the student enrolled in a Medical Office Assistant program when she assumed it was a Medical Assistant program. The school actually represented it as a Medical Assistant program when in fact it was not. These are clearly two separate fields. A Medical Office Assistant certainly is not "a fast track to an eventual nursing degree" (Morran, 2013), especially when all they do is file and bill. While a Medical Assistant is also not a fast track to nursing, the duties are more of a clinical nature (phlebotomy, EKG, etc.) Schools should accurately portray the programs which they offer.

    Morran, C. (2013). Jury awards former student $13 million in lawsuit against for-profit college. Retrieved from Jury Awards Former Student $13 Million In Lawsuit Against For-Profit College
     
  7. I agree. I assume that the school will appeal and everything will be settled out of court. She will get enough to "make her smile" and they will get a non-disclosure agreement and then go about their marry ways. I do place some of the blame on the student. Heck, that's even a high price tag for a Medical Assistant Cert.
     
  8. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    That's a pretty safe assumption. The news story points out that the $13,000,000 judgment awarded by the jury is so high that it appears to be in violation of state law:

     
  9. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    Considering the fact that you know nothing more than is included in the news article I'd say that you're jumping to conclusions. Isn't it more prudent to think that the judge/jury got it right and that you, without benefit of all the facts, have got it wrong? Why would you second guess the verdict when you know that there's so much that you don't know about the case?
     
  10. sideman

    sideman Well Known Member

    What you call jumping to conclusions, I call speculating. That's part of the fun of reading and studying other case law: Did the jury or judge get it right? Should the decision/verdict be overturned on appeal? Do I have all the facts of this case? No, I do not. Do you? No, you don't either. But I know two facts: this case was based on misrepresentation and the jury was trying to make an example of this "for profit" school.
     
  11. When you have seen similar things like this enough times you begin to make "safe assumptions". At some point the jury got it wrong. Hence the future appeal on damages. There probably was some misrepresentation by the school. Does that mean the plaintiff didn't follow the misrepresentation foolishly? Absolutely not. With such high damages the jury was probably more focused on "punishing" the school than focusing on the fact that the plaintiff made a bonehead choice.
     
  12. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    You're half right. Misrepresentation? Absolutely. Making an example? This suggests that you can read minds. You're making it up. You don't know the facts of the case and you're just filling in the blanks with your own prejudices.

    You have the right to your own opinion but what is it based upon? That fact is that a judge/jury has ruled against your opinion. They are the ones who have the facts, have heard the arguments, etc. Yet you think that you know better? Without the benefit of the facts? That's just funny.
     
  13. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    The alternative is that the jurors truly thought that this one woman suffered several million dollars' worth of damages. That they were sending a message may be a speculation, but it's an extremely reasonable one.
     
  14. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    Reasonable speculation = guessing with no facts but some logic. So take the next step. Tell me which part is speculation and which part is "reasonable."
     
  15. "A Jackson County jury on Friday found in favor of Kerr in her lawsuit against Vatterott and found that the Missouri-based Vatterott Educational Centers Inc. had violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. It ordered the corporation to pay Kerr $27,676 in actual damages and $13 million in punitive damages.

    The decision is certain to be appealed, her lawyer said, and the punitive amount the jury awarded far exceeds the maximum allowed under Missouri law. The most Kerr can receive, said her lawyer, Martin Meyers, is the greater of two amounts, either $500,000 or five times actual damages plus other expenses, including legal fees.

    'I asked for $2 million to $4 million in punitive damages,” Meyers said. “They came back with $13 million.' "

    $13 million awarded in lawsuit against Vatterott College - KansasCity.com
     
  16. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    The college is owned by TA Associates, an investment firm that manages $18 billion in assets. So the judgment against them represents well under 1/10th of 1% of their assets. That would be sort of like a person with $1 million losing a $700 suit. (The chair of TA was, incidentally, one of the very largest donors to the 2012 Mitt Romney campaign.)
     
  17. AV8R

    AV8R Active Member

    How is this relevant to the discussion?
     
  18. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    The "reasonable" part is that the woman didn't really incur several million dollars worth of damage from this incident. The "speculation" part is that therefore the jurors awarded her a vast sum to send a message to other proprietary schools.
     
  19. Don't get your panties in a bunch. It was just for general information. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page