William Patrick Guess v. Priam Sharma

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WILLIAM PATRICK GUESS, UNPUBLISHED June 10, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellant, 11:59 AM V No. 368978 Oakland Circuit Court PRIAM SHARMA, SAINT MARTINUS LC No. 2023-202288-CK UNIVERSITY, and ST. MARTINUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. Before: MALDONADO, P.J., and M. J. KELLY and RIORDAN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff, William Guess, appeals as of right the trial court’s opinion and order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants, Priam Sharma, Saint Martinus University (SMU), and St. Martinus Administrative Services, LLC, under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (C)(10). For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm. I. BASIC FACTS Guess is a medical student who alleges that he suffers from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In 2013, he enrolled in SMU’s medical school, which is located in Curacao, an island country located in the southern Caribbean Sea. From July 2014 through August 2016, Guess attended classes in Curacao. He then returned to Michigan, where he continued his medical education through SMU by using his professors’ class slides and taking examinations at a hospital associated with SMU. SMU was aware of Guess’s diagnosis of ADHD and gave him extra time to complete his school-administered examinations as an accommodation. Despite the accommodation, Guess -1- struggled academically, repeatedly failing and retaking multiple classes.1 Guess took his last course at SMU in February 2018. In 2019, while still enrolled at SMU, Guess participated in preparatory examinations through SMU that served to ready students for testing by the National Board of Medical Examiners. After twice taking the preparatory examination with no accommodations for his ADHD, Guess sat for a third preparatory examination. He expected that he would receive accommodations, but none were provided. SMU canceled a fourth preparatory examination because of the unpaid balance on Guess’s account with SMU. Around this time, Guess attempted to enroll at Washington University of Health and Science, a medical school in Belize, who conditionally accepted him on the basis of his unofficial SMU transcript showing a grade point average (GPA) of 2.15. SMU delayed releasing an official transcript because of a claimed outstanding balance owed by Guess. In July 2019, Guess brought a claim against SMU and OPMC in federal court, alleging a failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 US 12101 et seq., and breach of contract. The federal court, however, summarily dismissed his claims. See Guess v St Martinus Univ, unpublished opinion of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, issued April 13, 2021 (Case No. 2:19-cv-12159), pp 13-21. During the federal litigation, SMU finally released Guess’s official transcript. The transcript revealed a GPA of 0.82, which precluded his enrollment at Washington University of Health and Science. In response, Guess amended his complaint to add allegations related to the allegedly improper calculation of his GPA on his official transcript. Later, he moved for leave to file an amended complaint, seeking to add a claim for retaliation under the ADA based upon the discrepancies between his GPA on his unofficial transcript and his official transcript, a claim for promissory-estoppel, and two new contract claims. In its opinion summarily dismissing Guess’s case, the court also denied the motion to amend. Id. at 13. Thereafter, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Guess’s claims. Guess v St Martinus Univ, unpublished opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, issued April 26, 2022 (Case No. 21-1478), p 1. Guess then commenced the instant action in the Oakland Circuit Court, asserting claims of tortious interference with a business relationship or expectation, and retaliation under the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA), 37.1101 et seq., and seeking specific performance of a contractual agreement. The trial court, however, granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition on the basis of res judicata and collateral estoppel stemming from the federal suit. The court further held that Guess had failed to submit evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of m