The AMA and the Kashmiri Case

• Background
• Latest news

Background

The Kashmiri case originated in 2002 when the University of California (UC) system began raising tuition (in some cases retroactively) despite a promise that tuition for professional degree programs would not increase for the duration of a student's enrollment.  Mo Kashmiri, a UC-Berkeley law student, and other students, including medical students, filed a class-action suit, arguing that the tuition increases were a breach of contract (Kashmiri v. Regents of the University of California).
 
In 2006, a San Francisco County judge ruled in favor of Kashmiri and the other plaintiffs, awarding them ~$34 million.  UC immediately appealed the decision to the California Court of Appeals.  In response to American Medical Association (AMA) policy originating in the Medical Student Section (MSS Res Late 1, I-04), the AMA Litigation Center, on behalf of the AMA and the California Medical Association (CMA), filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in support of the students. In the amicus brief, the AMA and CMA emphasized that increases in medical school tuition exacerbate medical students’ already steep debt burden and can worsen physician shortages in underserved geographic areas and medical specialties, often disproportionately affecting certain minority populations. The brief pointed out the disincentive aspiring medical students face if they are required to assume not only the tuition and other expenses determined at the time they enter school but also subsequent, unexpected increases.  The brief was accepted by the court in May 2007.

• Read the amicus curiae brief (PDF, 188KB) and AMA press release
• Read the original MSS Resolution (PDF, 33KB)

Latest news

Sept. 19, 2007
A three-justice panel of the California Court of Appeal heard oral argument of the parties in Kashmiri v. Regents of the University of California. The plaintiffs, professional school graduate students (including medical students) at the University of California, challenged certain tuition increases imposed on them by UC and argued that increases to professional degree and educational fees were in breach of explicit promises UC had made to the students.

Nov. 2, 2007
The California Court of Appeal resoundingly affirmed the March 2006 judgment of the San Francisco County court by finding that implied contracts were formed between the UC and its professional students and that those contracts were breached when the university raised its professional degree program fees for continuing students after promising on its Web site and in its catalogues that such fees would not be raised for the duration of the students' enrollment in the professional program.  Increases would only apply to new entering students and would then be fixed for the balance of their degree program.  The appellate court refused to reduce the damages awarded by the lower court  (approximately $28 million plus prejudgment interest) by the amount of grants provided by the UC to the affected students.

Dec. 12, 2007
Regents of the University of California filed an appeal before the California Supreme Court.

Jan. 23, 2008
The California Supreme Court denied review of the California Court of Appeal's November 2007 decision in favor of the plaintiffs.  UC will now be forced to issue ~$40 million in refunds, most of which will go to professional graduate program students (including medical students) enrolled before 2003.

Read more about the decision. (Note: This link will take you off the AMA Web site. The AMA is not responsible for the content of other Web sites.)

Please contact the MSS with any questions.