|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
* * * * *
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Pro Se, individually and as a representative of a
class of individuals who moves this Honorable Court with Plaintiff's
Complaint For Actionable Fraud and submits the following to-wit:
1. That Plaintiff at all times is a resident of the State of Oregon,
County of Multnomah, City of Portland.
2. That Defendant, NATIONAL COLLEGE OF NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE
(hereinafter "NCNM") is an Oregon Post-Secondary Institution
established and incorporated under Oregon Law with corporate domicile in
the State of Oregon, County of Multnomah, City of Portland.
3. That Defendant, COUNCIL ON NATUROPATHIC MEDICAL EDUCATION
(hereinafter "CNME") is a District of Columbia non-profit
corporation duly registered and doing business in the State of Oregon,
County of Multnomah, City of Portland. Further, that Defendant "CNME"
is a quasi-governmental agency approved by the U.S. Department of
Education and is responsible for accrediting naturopathic colleges.
4. That the Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter and Plaintiff
demands the right for jury trial as in accordance with F.R.Civ.P. -
Rules 38 & 39(a).
5. That Defendant, "NCNM", purports to teach the
educational material necessary for eligibility to obtain a license to
practice Naturopathic Medicine through the respective Oregon State
Board, said Defendant did not represent the absolute
truth in its marketing & Catalogue information (see Exhibit
"A") about the "licensing/practice rights" within
the rest of the United States and used a means of fraudulent inducement
as said deceptive material states - "Naturopathic physicians
practice invirtually every state and Canadian province under various
legal provisions ...". When in fact, the actual reality is that
Naturopathic Physicians are only allowed to practice in a handful of
States and not as deceptively advertised in Defendant's
catalogue and/or marketing material.
6. That the perceived truth and the reality of the information given
initially to Plaintiff by Defendant set the stage of inducement where
Plaintiff believed that Naturopathic Physicians are
able to practice in every state, as general/ family health care
practitioners and are recognized as "primary care" providers.
This state of belief was based at all times upon Defendant's false
representations in their catalogue, correspondence and communications.
Though, as time would tell, Defendant's false representation were not
to be correct or the absolute truth. Therefore, Defendant "NCNM"
knowingly and intentionally made, printed, distributed and/or published
materially misleading or untruthful advertising about its college and
the profession of Naturopathy. Also, that the false representations made
by Defendant "NCNM" were of such caliber and magnitude as to
the overall professional standing and practice rights for naturopathy as
to reasonably influence and/or induce potential students to come to
study at Defendant's college.
7. That originally Plaintiff was a student interested in the
naturopathic profession and would assert that same was intentionally
misled into believing that by attending Defendant "NCNM" and
receiving their Doctorate in Naturopathic Medicine (N.D.) degree that
Plaintiff would NOW be in a position to be recognized nationally as a
medical provider at the level of a general/family health care
practitioner and as a "primary care" provider. Also, it was
asserted to Plaintiff that based upon the training taught by Defendant,
that Plaintiff in their practice would be able to perform "minor
surgical" procedures on par and consistent with regular medical
physicians (ie., M.D.'s or D.O.'s). This is not the truth as less than a
handful of states allow naturopathic practitioners to perform any
surgical procedure or be recognized as general/family health care
practitioners. It is to be noted that only one (1) state directly
recognizes naturopathic practitioners as "primary care"
providers (ie., Oregon). Thus, all information and assertions by
Defendant "NCNM" to Plaintiff were totally puffed up or
inflated in nature, content and substance. Also, it should be noted that
all of Defendant's false material was well printed and distributed
throughout the U.S. giving rise to federal jurisdiction. Therefore, the
educational contract between Plaintiff and Defendant was never
entered into in "good faith".
8. That the historic facts in this matter are outlined as follows,
Plaintiff in late 1987 while living in New York State explored
post-graduate professional training options and through telephonic
conversations and correspondence mailings which included brochure type
material from Defendant, became interested in the Naturopathic
Profession. Consequently, Plaintiff contacted Defendant NCNM for further
information about Naturopathic Medicine and the College itself. In turn,
Defendant "NCNM" sent Plaintiff further information about the
profession of Naturopathy and its College which included the college
catalogue approved by Defendant "CNME". Consequently, as a
direct result of the information and the content contained in
Defendant's material, Plaintiff was directly induced into matriculating
into Defendant's program in September of 1988 and completed their
education and training to receive the Doctorate degree in Naturopathic
Medicine (1993) only to understand too late that said
profession was only recognized in approximately seven (7) states.
Further, that the actual practice rights and privileges for the
naturopathic practitioner differ greatly from state to state and is as
different as night is to day. That with the exception of the one (1)
state (ie., Oregon), the naturopathic practitioner is not
recognized as a general/family practitioner or as a "primary
care" provider. In fact, since about 1987, the education and
training received by naturopathic students within the area of emergency
medicine/trauma has been found by States looking to provide licensure
standards for naturopaths as totally inadequate to
allow the naturopathic practitioner to be a "primary care
provider". See, attached Exhibit "B" - State of Nebraska
Department of Health Report on this subject. Therefore, even while
knowing this factual reality, Defendant "NCNM" by and through
its Board and Agents conspired to devise a marketing campaign to attract
potential students interested in the Naturopathic Profession without
doing "full disclosure" about the actual status of said
profession which in and of itself is intentional "fraud and
deceit".
9. That based upon Defendant "NCNM's" puffed up and
deceitful advertising, Plaintiff truly believed that after graduation,
Plaintiff would be able to go anywhere in the U.S.
& Canada and be able to open up their practice for the public's
betterment. This was not to be and in all reality, unless Plaintiff
wishes to break the law, practice within limited jurisdictions or in a
very limited practice, Plaintiff NOW has a nearly useless degree.
Wherefore, this absolute truth regarding professional training and
practice rights were not truly found in Defendant's 1987/1988
marketing material which is what Defendant enticed Plaintiff with and
what Plaintiff relied on in making their decision to attend Defendant's
program. Thus, Plaintiff would assert that this gives rise to multiple
claims including fraudulent representations, fraud and of detrimental
reliance for this matter.
10. That with their approval by U.S. Department of Education
(hereinafter "USDE"), Defendant "CNME" became USDE's
accrediting arm for colleges of naturopathy and as such, Defendant
"CNME" did provisionally accredit Defendant "NCNM"
in 1987. Also, as part of accrediting the colleges of naturopathy,
Defendant "CNME" was obligated pursuant to USDE's rules and
regulations for ensuring that the colleges of naturopathy were in full
compliance with said rules and regulations. Thus, it was Defendant
"CNME's" duty and obligation to ensure that Defendant "NCNM"
was at all times representing itself and its marketing information
properly. This was not to be the case and Defendant "CNME" failed
its mission as found in both 20 U.S.C. 1058 et at. and
the corresponding CFR at 602.17(e)
which states: "determining the extent to which institutions or
programs broadly and accurately publicize, particularly in
representations directed to prospective students ...."
11. That Defendant "CNME" as the "USDE"
accreditor of the naturopathic programs is responsible for ensuring that
the representations of the college made by Defendant "NCNM"
were at all times in compliance with the law and not contrary to public
form. This was not the case, subsequently both Defendant's "CNME
& NCNM" are directly responsible for allowing fraudulent
solicitation material and misrepresentations to be distributed to
prospective students, of which Plaintiff was at the time. Further, as
Defendant "NCNM" purports to train students in the health care
arena, should not Defendant have also known about their duty and
responsibility of complying with full disclosure laws? This was not the
case as Defendant willfully and wantonly did and still continues to
intentionally pervert the truth in this matter by sending and/or giving
misleading information or concealing material facts about the
naturopathic profession to inquiring students. Further, Plaintiff would
assert that this is not a case of "caveat emptor" but a case
of "caveat venditor" as Defendant "NCNM" has used
fraud & deceit approved by Defendant "CNME" to induce
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals into attending
Defendant "NCNM's" program.
12. That for the record, Plaintiff was induced into a contractual
relation with Defendant "NCNM" by the information directly
provided by Defendant "NCNM" which additionally was approved
by Defendant CNME and if the absolute truth were known from the very
beginning when Defendant "NCNM" first solicited Plaintiff to
attend their program, then Plaintiff would never have
contracted to attend Defendant "NCNM's" program. Plaintiff
would additionally assert that this matter involves a claim of
"detrimental reliance" on the part of the representations and
or omissions made by Defendant "NCNM". Thus, Defendant "NCNM"
is to be held accountable directly for all illegal actions of fraud done
in this instance and Defendant "CNME" is to be held negligent
in its delegated duties by allowing Defendant "NCNM" to
perpetrate the fraud and deceit committed.
13. Therefore, when one looks at all the facts in this matter, it
becomes clear that Plaintiff was fraudulently induced into attending
Defendant "NCNM's" program based upon Defendant's own written
assertions provided in its 1987/88 College Catalogue which was approved
by Defendant "CNME" when in fact, said representations were
actually misrepresentations of the truth when both
Defendant's should have known better. Also, that as Plaintiff was a
victim of fraud, then Plaintiff should be compensated for the cost of
the program and the loss of income and livelihood taken away from
Plaintiff due to Defendant's actions.
WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PAYS:
1. For general damages against Defendant "NCNM" in this matter
in the amount of TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS (U.S.);
2. For punitive damages against Defendant "NCNM" in this
matter in the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS (U.S.);
3. For general damages against Defendant "CNME" in this
matter in the amount of TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS (U.S.);
4. For punitive damages against Defendant "CNME" in this
matter in the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS (U.S.);
and
5. For any other relief deemed appropriate by the
Court. Respectfully submitted this _14_day of January, 1997.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
That as an overview, this matter
combines a pattern of fraud and deceit perpetrated in a manner whereby
one fraudulent actor acts alone and in conjunction with another actor
who has the authority to allow or sanction the first actor's role.
Consequently, both actors are acting outside and above the laws that
govern our society.
That at all times in this matter,
Defendant "NCNM's" knew or should have known that its direct
actions of printing and distributing material that was deceptive, false
and misleading about the profession that same educates in was at all
times contrary to the law and not in conformance with academic policy.
Further, that Defendant "CNME" as the U.S.D.E. approved entity
to accredit naturopathic programs was at all times responsible for
ensuring that the marketing material used by its accredited naturopathic
colleges stayed in conformance with laws and rules governing education
and accrediting authorities. This was not to be the case and Defendant
"CNME" is directly responsible for allowing Defendant "NCNM"
to disseminate college material to prospective students that was
fraudulent and deceptive in nature by misrepresenting the scope of the
program. Further, this deceptive material directly induced
Plaintiff into a contractual agreement financially for education with
Defendant "NCNM" when Plaintiff matriculated into the
Defendant's program on September of 1988. Thus, the following caselaw is
to be applicable in this instance:
"Particularity requirement for
pleading fraud was satisfied by allegation that, on or about specific
date, school induced student to pay ... in tuition by misrepresenting
content or scope of ... program." Phillips Colleges of
Alabama v. Lester, 622 So.2d 308 (Ala. 1993).
"The essential elements of an
action for deceit are: (1) a false, material representation (ordinarily
of fact) made by the defendant; (2) scienter, that is, knowledge, by the
defendant that the representation is false, or is an assertion of fact
which he does not know to be true; (3) an intention that the plaintiff
should act on such representation; (4) justifiable reliance by plaintiff
on the representation; and (5) damage to the plaintiff resulting from
such reliance." Delta School of Commerce v. Wood,
766 S.W.2d 424, 298 Ark. 195, 85 ALR4th 1069 (1989). See also, McWilliams
v. Zedlitz, 742 S.W.2d 929, 294 Ark. 336 (1988) and Greendell
v. Kiehl, 723 S.W.2d 830, 291 Ark. 228 (1987).
"In general, an action for fraud
or deceit may not be predicated on representation relating solely to
future events, but the general rule is inapplicable if the person making
the representation or prediction knows it to be false at the time it is
made." Delta School of Commerce v. Wood,
766 S.W.2d 424, 298 Ark. 195, 85 ALR4th 1069 (1989).
Thus, as seen above, Courts have held
that a student can recover for fraud in the inducement to enroll in a
course or program of instruction based upon a misrepresentation by the
school as to the nature of the training provided.
That Plaintiff has shown based upon
Defendant "NCNM's" material and college catalogue that same
was fraudulently induced and deceived about the training to be provided
by said Defendant as to the scope of medical practice one would be
allowed to practice once graduated. Plaintiff has also shown that based
upon the nature of the deceitful material, that the named Defendants
knew or should have known that the material being sent to prospective
students was false. Also, Plaintiff has shown that same relied on this
false material when contracting with Defendant College for education and
that Plaintiff NOW has basically a worthless degree that cost a
substantial amount of time, energy and money.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff would ask that this
matter go forward against the named Defendants on the charges complained
herein.
DATED this _14_day of January, 1997.
|
