Creighton University School of Medicine — Dismissal & Appeals

Written by Zachary Gaynor, attorney · The Florida Bar, admitted 2016 · court admissions. Reviewed 3 September 2026.

Who decides whether a Creighton medical student is dismissed?

The Advancement Committee decides at Creighton University School of Medicine, and a Review Committee appointed ad hoc by the Dean hears the challenge. You have ten calendar days — but Creighton’s own policies disagree about whether that clock starts on the date of the decision or the date you were told about it, and the deadline is jurisdictional.

The ten-day trigger conflict, and why it is the whole case

Creighton publishes the same ten-day window with two different starting points:

• The Review of Student Performance Policy and the Professionalism Policy: within ten calendar days of notification of the Advancement Committee’s decision.
• The Review Process for Advancement Committee Decisions Policy — the policy that actually governs the review — says it “must occur within ten (10) calendar days of the Advancement Committee decision.”

For a committee that meets and then emails days later, those are different dates. And the consequence is absolute: “If the student fails to request a review by the Review Committee within the 10-day period, his or her right to request a review is forfeited and the Advancement Committee’s decision is final.”

Count from the date of the meeting, not the date of the email. It is the earlier reading, it costs nothing, and it removes the only argument that can end the matter without anyone looking at the merits. Then preserve the conflict — Creighton drafted both sentences.

Three policies, three different final authorities

Creighton publishes three terminal appellate authorities across its own policy set, with nothing reconciling them:

• The Review Process policy: the student may ask the Dean to review. “The Dean will have the option to accept or deny the review,” and if the Dean does review, the findings “are final.”
• The same policy also says that for serious penalties the student “may have the right” to appeal to the University Provost.
• The Suspension, Withdrawals, Dismissal Policy describes something different again: review of academic-related disciplinary matters by the University President, or of non-academic matters by the School of Medicine and the Vice President for Student Services.

Where a school publishes three inconsistent routes, the safe course is to file to the Dean within the window and, in the same letter, expressly reserve the Provost and President routes the other policies describe. Do not let the School’s ambiguity become your waiver.

Note also that the Dean’s review is discretionary — the Dean may simply decline to take it.

Only two grounds, and one of them makes you disclose a disability

A review is available only on: “(a) failure of the Advancement Committee to follow procedural due process, and/or (b) new evidence that indicates that the academic performance or the conduct of the student was unduly impaired by a significant and previously undiagnosed medical condition or personal or family hardship.”

And ground (b) carries a second requirement: “the evidence should indicate how the impairment will be addressed by accommodation or other means consistent with the Technical Standards of the School of Medicine.”

Read that carefully. The only substantive ground of review requires a student to disclose a newly diagnosed condition and, in the same submission, argue their own accommodation and technical-standards fitness — effectively litigating a disability question inside an academic appeal, before anyone has agreed the condition is relevant. That is a decision with consequences well beyond this proceeding, and it should be made with advice rather than under deadline pressure.

There is also a threshold bar: a review “will be accepted only if the proposed action taken by the Advancement Committee is serious” — dismissal, probation, suspension, a repeat year, or a request for withdrawal. Anything less is unreviewable.

Your lawyer may attend and may not speak — and your “advocate” works for the school

The same language appears in all three policies: “Because this is not a legal proceeding, a legal representative of the student may accompany the student but may not address the committee.” An advocate is offered, and the student may substitute their own.

Notice must be given “prior to the meeting,” but Creighton publishes no number — unlike UNMC’s one week. Give notice as early as you can and in writing.

The role worth examining is the Associate Dean for Student Affairs, who under these policies is simultaneously the officer who receives and examines the allegation, the officer who may resolve it informally, the designated student advocate at the hearing, and the administrator of the policy. The policy frames the advocacy role as existing to “assure due process.” A student is entitled to decide for themselves whether one person can hold all four roles, and to bring their own advocate instead.

No standard of proof is published in any of the three governing policies. The Review Committee decides by majority vote, with eighty per cent of voting members required for official action.

Enrollment is not preserved, and withdrawing does not stop it

“The filing of any further review does not confer the right to continue a course of study that has been suspended by a decision of the Advancement Committee or Dean.” A student recommended for dismissal “may be placed on a Temporary Withdrawal – Administrative.”

And the exit is closed: “A student may not avoid disciplinary action or formal dismissal by voluntary withdrawal. If a student chooses to withdraw in the course of disciplinary action or dismissal proceedings, the proceedings will continue, and the results will become part of the student’s permanent record.” At several other schools a timely withdrawal changes what appears on the record; at Creighton it does not.

The compelled-evaluation clause

The Associate Dean for Student Affairs may temporarily suspend a student “who has significant physical or mental illness or whose behavior arouses serious concern,” may require “medical, psychological, psychiatric and/or laboratory testing/evaluation” and authorization to release the results to the Advancement Committee — and: “Refusal to undergo testing/evaluation or authorize release of requested evaluations will result in continued suspension and action by the Advancement Committee.”

Declining is therefore not a neutral option. The scope of what is evaluated and what is released is worth negotiating in writing before the appointment.

Both campuses sit on the committee

Creighton runs Omaha and a Phoenix regional campus, and the Review Committee is built to span them: three faculty (two from the campus where the student is enrolled, one from the other), two medical students (one from each campus), and the Associate Dean for Student Affairs from both campuses as non-voting members. If you are a Phoenix student, one of your three faculty reviewers will not be from your campus.

Other rules that decide cases

• USMLE: a passing Step 1 score is required to advance to Component III; dismissal referral follows failure to pass Step 1 after three attempts.
• Referral is triggered by an Unsatisfactory grade in two or more courses in an academic year.
• A broad catch-all: dismissal may follow “any pattern of behavior that indicates insufficient aptitude, emotional stability, or moral character to successfully practice medicine.”
• Probation reaches the residency application. It is reported as an Adverse Action, and if imposed after the MSPE has gone to ERAS or ResidencyCAS, an addendum noting it “will be added to the MSPE and forwarded to the appropriate residency application portal.”
• Professionalism allegations may be resolved informally with no right of review by the student.
• Recusal rules are unusually explicit and reach members who “provided health services, including psychiatric/psychological counseling, to the medical student.”

Academic and professionalism run the same route here

Creighton collapses the distinction: academic deficiency and professionalism both go to the same Advancement Committee, under the same procedure, the same appeal path and the same ten-day window. There is no separate disciplinary forum for professionalism in the medical program, and the two policies are near-identical procedurally.

Creighton is private, so constitutional due process does not attach and the usual academic-deference framing is not the lever. The leverage is contractual: the School published detailed procedures, cites LCME Element 9.9 on the face of them, and then published two irreconcilable trigger dates and three different terminal authorities. A school is generally held to the process it promised.

Where the governing documents are

Creighton hosts these on a policy portal as public documents that are awkward to reach — they are Word files behind a viewer session. All were retrieved and read on 3 September 2026:

• Index of MD policies — creighton.edu
• School of Medicine committees — creighton.edu
• Professionalism Policy, 2020 public PDF version — creighton.edu

Revision dates matter here: the Review Process policy was last revised 24 June 2025, the Review of Student Performance policy 25 March 2025, and the Suspension/Withdrawals/Dismissal policy 26 April 2022. Ask for the version in force on the date the Committee acted.

Related reading

• Medical school dismissal, remediation and promotion committees
• Professionalism and fitness-to-practice findings
• Disability accommodations under Section 504 and the ADA
• Public or private? A due-process decision tree
• Nebraska student defense

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:

• Myotherapy Institute
• Nebraska College of Technical Agriculture
• University of Nebraska Medical Center
• UNMC College of Medicine — Dismissal & Appeals
• CHI Health School of Radiologic Technology

Common questions

When does my ten days start at Creighton?

Two policies say notification of the decision; the policy governing the review says the decision itself. Count from the date of the Committee meeting, and note the conflict in your filing — missing the window forfeits the review entirely.

Can my attorney speak at the hearing?

No. Creighton permits a legal representative to accompany you but not to address the committee. Give notice before the meeting; the policy requires notice but sets no number of days.

Do I have to disclose a medical condition to appeal?

Only if you rely on the second ground. Creighton limits review to procedural failure or new evidence of a previously undiagnosed condition or hardship — and that ground also asks you to address accommodation and the technical standards. It is worth advice before disclosing.

Can I withdraw instead of being dismissed?

Not to avoid the outcome. Creighton provides that proceedings continue after a withdrawal and the results become part of the permanent record.

Can I keep attending while I appeal?

Not if your course of study has been suspended. Creighton expressly provides that filing a further review does not confer a right to continue.