CHI Health School of Radiologic Technology Student Defense Lawyer

Students reach me about the CHI Health School of Radiologic Technology at three points: after a needs improvement form or written warning appears in the file, when a preceptor reports a supervision or radiation safety problem, and after a letter says the Advisory Committee will consider dismissal. Each carries a clock measured in hours, and each is decided on a record that is already mostly built.

How do student discipline and dismissal cases work at the CHI Health School of Radiologic Technology?

The School is private. It is a hospital-based program of CHI Health, a division of CommonSpirit Health, accredited by the Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology and accredited by Nebraska’s Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education to grant a Bachelor of Science in Radiologic Science. Because it is private it is not a state actor, so there is no Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. The theory is contract, plus Title IX, Title VI and Section 504 and the ADA.

In Nebraska the contract case is Armstrong v. Clarkson College, 297 Neb. 595, 901 N.W.2d 1 (2017), itself a health-professions dismissal. It holds that the student–institution relationship can rest on an implied-in-fact contract whose terms come from handbooks and policy manuals, generally a jury question, and that academic deference “is not an affirmative defense” and does not attach to every decision an institution makes. Its practical headline is exhaustion: where an institution provides a mandatory grievance procedure, enforcement of contract rights is conditioned on using it, and that applies to private entities. Use the handbook’s due process steps, in writing, inside the hours they allow. See breach of contract.

Nebraska statute adds nothing. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 85-601 to 85-605 require a public hearing and a written order with findings of fact for force and seizure-of-property charges, but § 85-605 names only the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska and the Community College Board of Governors. A private hospital school is outside it. The handbook is the process.

Where do CHI Health School of Radiologic Technology cases come from?

The program enrolls 29 students across five semesters in Omaha, with clinical rotations at CHI Health hospitals and affiliated sites. Almost everything that ends an enrollment starts in the clinical area rather than the classroom: a competency evaluation, a repeat image, a supervision level, a patient privacy question, an attendance record, or a report from a preceptor about professionalism.

That is the defining fact here. The program has no campus separate from the hospital, so removal from the clinical site is not a step before dismissal; it is the dismissal. There is no other section to move to and no way to keep progressing on the academic side alone, because graduation requires ARRT clinical competencies and a documented minimum of 1,800 exams. Because clinical evaluations are weekly and every needs improvement form costs one percent of a grade, the record that decides the case is built in small increments over months, by the same few people.

Those people also overlap. The Program Director certifies veterans benefits, sits on the Advisory Committee that makes the final determination on a dismissal, and schedules the hearing at which the appeal from that determination is heard. The Clinical Coordinator arranges site and room assignments. The Clinical Instructor and the preceptors write the evaluations. At a program of 29 students that concentration is normal, but it is exactly the kind of overlap a contract claim is built on. Ask, in writing and early, who will hear an appeal.

Which process are you in, and why does that matter?

The handbook runs one discipline ladder and several separate academic clocks, and they are not the same thing. Discipline runs verbal warning and needs improvement form, written warning, probation, dismissal, with two needs improvement forms triggering a written warning automatically and two written warnings triggering probation, though the handbook says the steps need not follow in lock step order. Academic failure is different: an overall 2.8 GPA and 70 percent in each course are conditions of continuing, and satisfactory academic progress is evaluated every semester on its own terms. Harassment is routed to the same Advisory Committee. A dismissal for insubordination, unprofessional conduct, or unsafe, immoral or unethical practice is a professionalism finding, and that is the kind of finding a certifying body may ask about later, not just the school.

Answering the wrong question spends the one response you get. Match your letter to the right route: conduct code charges, academic misconduct, or academic dismissal and suspension.

What should you do first?

Get the handbook in the version in force on your incident date, from the School rather than from a summary, and read the Students’ Rights section before the Disciplinary Action section. Then pull your own record: every needs improvement form you signed, every weekly clinical evaluation, the clinical performance evaluations and repeat evaluation forms, your Trajecsys and Moodle entries, and the attendance record with the dates and times of any notice you gave. The handbook defines an unexcused absence as non-attendance without 12 hours’ notice, so the timestamp on your message is often the whole dispute.

Then put the dates in writing. Ask the Program Director, in an email you keep, for your appeal deadline, who will sit on the Committee, whether anyone on it took part in the decision, and a copy of the material the Committee will see. Because the clocks run in 24 and 72-hour steps, ask before you respond rather than after. Do not sit for a meeting about a dismissal before you know which of the handbook’s listed grounds is being used.

What does the CHI Health School of Radiologic Technology’s own policy actually say?

The School publishes one document that serves as both the conduct code and the academic policy, which is why the same link appears twice below. Some fields are stated precisely. Others are not published at all, and this list says which is which.

• Conduct office: the Advisory Committee and the Program Director, under the Disciplinary Action and Students’ Rights sections of the CHI Health School of Radiologic Technology student handbook.
• Governing policy: that handbook, read with the CHI Policy Manual it repeatedly incorporates. There is no system-wide code and no Nebraska board policy above it. Dismissal grounds are listed and include failure to maintain academic standards, repeated clinical warnings or probation, insubordination or unprofessional conduct, cheating, dishonesty or stealing, disclosure of confidential information, non-compliance with radiation safety, unsafe, immoral or unethical practice, and unwillingness to progress from direct to indirect supervision.
• Academic integrity: not a separate track. Cheating and dishonesty are listed as dismissal grounds, and the handbook separately says seeking old worksheets or tests from a second-year student or graduate is considered cheating and subject to disciplinary action.
• Appeal window: the Advisory Committee responds to a petition within 72 hours; within 72 hours of notice of its action you must tell the Program Director in writing that you wish to appeal; the Program Director schedules a hearing within 5 days; the Committee decides within 48 hours and notifies you within 24; you may appeal to a Human Resources representative within 24 hours; that decision is rendered within 48 hours and is final and binding. A complaint about JRCERT standards is concluded within 30 days.
• Standard of proof: the handbook does not publish one. No campus-specific standard of proof located, and Nebraska supplies no default for a private school. Ask the Program Director in writing which standard the Committee will apply and keep the answer.
• Advisor: the handbook does not say whether you may bring an advisor, whether the advisor may be a lawyer, or whether the advisor may speak. It says only that supportive documentation, not hearsay, is provided by the student. No campus-specific advisor rule located. Ask in writing before the hearing.
• Academic standing: also in the same handbook. The program is five semesters and must be completed within 150 percent of its length; you must hold an overall 2.8 GPA and 70 percent or better in each academic course, and 85 percent in a clinical category before working under indirect supervision. Satisfactory academic progress is full-time enrollment, a 2.8 GPA and 100 percent of attempted hours or progression to the next level, evaluated each semester, and the handbook states that failing it means dismissal with no financial aid appeal. Treat that as its own problem and see SAP appeals.
• Title IX and equal opportunity: the handbook prohibits acts or threats of sexual harassment and says non-compliance is subject to disciplinary action through the Advisory Committee. It does not name a Title IX coordinator or an equal opportunity office.
• Disability accommodations: the handbook states the School will reasonably accommodate qualified individuals so they can perform the essential functions of a radiographer, and asks for documentation from licensed professionals, but names no office. Because the direct-threat language in a clinical program is where these disputes actually turn, see 504 and ADA accommodations.

The handbook also names three outside routes: JRCERT, the Nebraska Department of Education Private Postsecondary Career Schools office, and the Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education. None reinstates a student, and none tolls an internal deadline. File internally first, on time, and treat an outside complaint as a separate step.

What can a student defense lawyer do here?

A federal claim arising at the CHI Health School of Radiologic Technology — Title IX, Title VI, or Section 504 and the ADA — is filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, where I am admitted to the bar. The School is private, so there is no Fourteenth Amendment claim, and the Armstrong contract claim is a state-law claim. Few of these matters reach a courtroom. What decides them is the program record:

• Reading the governing policy against the charge or decision letter
• Preparing your account, your documents and your questions
• Testing whether the school followed its own published procedure
• Scrutinising software-based evidence, including AI-detection and similarity reports
• Helping with the written response and the appeal, where policy allows
• Serving as your advisor where the process permits one
• Negotiating sanction terms, notations and disclosure language

What a lawyer can do in the room turns on a policy this handbook does not publish, which is a reason to ask before the hearing rather than after. Where a professionalism finding could follow you to a certification application, the negotiation over how the outcome is described is often worth more than the argument about whether it should have happened. Once a decision is final, the questions shift to the record and the grounds, covered under appeals and court review.

Other Nebraska schools

Every school writes its own dismissal, appeal and conduct rules, and the filing deadlines are rarely the same from one campus to the next. These pages set out the procedure at other Nebraska schools:

• Creighton University School of Medicine — Dismissal & Appeals
• Myotherapy Institute
• Nebraska College of Technical Agriculture
• University of Nebraska Medical Center
• UNMC College of Medicine — Dismissal & Appeals

Common questions about CHI Health School of Radiologic Technology student cases

Who decides a dismissal at the CHI Health School of Radiologic Technology?

The Advisory Committee. The handbook says a cause for dismissal will be presented to it for final determination, and it lists the members as the Program Director, Clinical Coordinator, Clinical Instructor, Clinical Preceptors, Operations Directors and Service Line Director. The same Committee then hears the appeal from its own action, with the Program Director scheduling the hearing and a Human Resources representative sitting as mediator. Only the last step, an appeal to an HR representative, goes to someone outside the program. Ask in writing who will sit.

How long do I have to appeal at the CHI Health School of Radiologic Technology?

The clocks are measured in hours, not weeks. The Advisory Committee responds to a petition within 72 hours. Within 72 hours after notice of its action you must tell the Program Director in writing that you wish to appeal. A hearing is then scheduled within 5 days. The Committee decides within 48 hours and notifies you within 24. You may appeal to a Human Resources representative within 24 hours, and that decision comes within 48 hours and is final and binding.

Can I appeal a financial aid dismissal for failing satisfactory academic progress?

The handbook says no. Satisfactory academic progress there means full-time enrollment, a minimum 2.8 GPA and completing 100 percent of attempted hours or progressing to the next level, checked at the end of every semester. If you miss it, the handbook states you will be dismissed from the program and are no longer eligible for financial aid, that no appeal for financial aid will be granted in those circumstances, and that you may only be eligible if readmitted to the program in a subsequent cohort.

This is general information about the matters I handle and the law that applies to them. It is not legal advice about your situation, and the law in this area can change. For advice on your matter, start with the Full Read + Game Plan — your entire file read, straight answers, and exactly what to do next, in what order. Other campuses are covered on the Nebraska student defense page.

This page is informational and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by the institution named on it.

Attorney advertising. Zachary Gaynor is licensed to practice law in Florida and is admitted to the bars of the United States District Courts for the Southern, Middle, and Northern Districts of Florida, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, the United States District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois, the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, and the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Federal court admission is not a license to practice the law of the state in which the court sits; he is not licensed in Nebraska and does not advise on Nebraska state law.