No. _________

================================================================

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

--------------------------------- ---------------------------------

DR. JEFFREY D. ISAACS,

Petitioner,

v.

NEW HAMPSHIRE BOARD OF MEDICINE,

Respondent.

--------------------------------- ---------------------------------

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The State Of New Hampshire Supreme Court

--------------------------------- ---------------------------------

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

--------------------------------- ---------------------------------

JEFFREY ISAACS 8 Chase Circle Fort Washington, PA 19034 Telephone: (610) 202-1460 Email: jdi.99@dartmouth.edu

Petitioner, pro se

================================================================

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Petitioner Jeffrey David Isaacs graduated from medical school in 2010, ranking amongst the top physicians in the United States on the national board exam. The New Hampshire Board of Medicine effec-tively ended Petitioners medical career shortly thereafter when it unsealed a decade old controversy and misrepresented it as a criminal matter. Petition-er has no criminal record whatsoever, however the Board rescinded his medical license for allegedly omitting a subsequently acquitted charge from his medical residency trainee license application. Said acquitted charge is in fact a sealed and dismissed administrative discipline at a Southern California medical school, which dates back to 2005. This Pe-tition seeks to reverse the severe punishment New Hampshire executed when it resurrected this retired controversy and terminated a new doctors vocation just as it was to begin.

Petitioner alleges this harsh action occurred in retaliation for his claims of gross Title IX violations and electronic evidence destruction by senior leader-ship at New Hampshires Dartmouth College.

Under New Hampshire statute, the Board is immune from any civil procedure to resolve this matter. The license revocation itself is not subject to any form of mandatory review. Isaacs sole means of correcting this injustice is this petition to the highest court in the land.

ii

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued

In reaching their determination, the Board failed to enter into the record evidence that a) Petitioner had been acquitted of all controversies in the South-ern California matter, b) the Southern California administrative charges were dismissed, c) the origi-nal matriculation agreement was discharged, and furthermore d) the entire matter was sealed.

The Questions Presented are:

1) What are the implications to a state licen-sure board when a major university takes the un-common step of sealing a disciplinary record and annulling matriculation agreements?

2) In depriving petitioner of his liberty to prac-tice medicine, and failing to meet minimal estab-lished procedural due process requirements, did the New Hampshire Board of Medicine violate the proce-dural due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment?

3) Did New Hampshire interfere with the Petitioner and Keck School of Medicines freedom of contract regarding his academic records and matricu-lation contract, and thereby violate the substantive due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amend-ment?

4) What recourse, other than this Petition, is available when a state falsely publishes a nonexistent criminal record on a nationally broadcast website, under the guise of state legal proceeding civil immun-ity?

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................ i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. v

OPINIONS BELOW ............................................. 1

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ...................... 1

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PRO-VISIONS ........................................................... 2

INTRODUCTION ................................................ 5

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................. 8

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ... 11

I. New Hampshire violated the Fourteenth Amendments Substantive Due Process Re-quirements in Disregarding Keck and The Petitioners Freedom of Contract ................ 11

II. New Hampshire Failed to Uphold Petitioners Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process Rights .............................................. 12

III. New Hampshire Interfered with the Peti-tioners Fifth Amendment Due Process Rights ........................................................... 14

IV. Sealing Isaacs Disciplinary Records Under FERPA Amounted to Expungement Under Federal Law; The NH Board Reprimanded Isaacs for Adhering to A Federal Court Or-dered Settlement .......................................... 15

V. The Board of Medicine Possessed No Ver-ifiable Evidence of the Disputed Keck Dis-ciplinary History .......................................... 16

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued

Page

VI. Even arguendo assumption that NH didnt need to respect a federal settlement contract, No Evidence Was Presented that Petitioner was guilty of professional misconduct ........ 17

CONCLUSION ..................................................... 18

APPENDIX

New Hampshire Supreme Court Order filed January 8, 2015 ............................................... App. 1

New Hampshire Board of Medicine Final De-cision and Order filed March 11, 2014 ............ App. 2

Denial of Motion to Withdraw Publication of License Revocation Email dated November 14, 2014 .......................................................... App. 13

Jeffrey D. Isaacs, MD v. Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, et al. Excerpt dated January 15, 2014 .......................................................... App. 14

Affidavit of Michael H. Payne, Esquire dated April 30, 2012 ................................................. App. 15

Confidential Settlement Agreement and Re-lease dated August 4, 2007 ............................ App. 18

Confidential Settlement Agreement and Re-lease dated March 31, 2008 ........................... App. 27

v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

AMENDMENT V UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION .............................. 4, 14

AMENDMENT XIV UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ............ 5, 11, 12, 14, 18

STATUTES

20 U.S.C. 1232g Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) .................................... 2, 15

28 U.S.C. 2101(c) ....................................................... 2

28 U.S.C. 2104 ........................................................... 2

All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651 .................................... 2

New Hampshire RSA 329:18(a)(IV) ....................... 1, 11

NH RSA 329:17 IV(a) ................................................... 1

RULES

Rule 3 of the Supreme Court of New Hamp-shire ........................................................................... 2

1

OPINIONS BELOW

The New Hampshire Board of Medicine issued an Opinion on March 11, 2014 (App. 2). The New Hamp-shire Supreme Court declined review of the Opinion. This Opinion of the Board of Medicine is not reported elsewhere.

--------------------------------- ---------------------------------

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

The New Hampshire Board of Medicine revoked Petitioners medical license on February 5, 2014. The revocation was published online on March 11, 2014 (App. 2). As of todays filing, it had never been direct-ly served upon Isaacs as required by New Hampshire RSA 329:18(a)(IV):

Final disciplinary actions and final actions in other adjudicatory proceedings shall be reduced to writing and served upon the par-ties. Such decisions shall not be public until they are served upon the parties.

On October 9, 2014 Petitioner filed a Motion with the Board of Medicine to cease publication that is non-compliant with NH RSA 329. On November 6, 2014, the Board denied the Motion (App. 13) and an appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court was filed on November 22nd 2014.

On January 8, 2015 the State of New Hamp- shire Supreme Court denied hearing the appeal. (App. 1) NH RSA 329 grants the NH Supreme Court

2

discretionary jurisdiction over proceedings of the Board of Medicine. However, there is no mandatory review as of right in New Hampshire according to Rule 3 of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

This Petition is timely filed on April 8th, 2015. The Supreme Court of the United States has jurisdic-tion under 28 U.S.C. 2101(c) and 28 U.S.C. 2104 to review this Petition. Additionally, under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651 this Court has authority to review a State Board of Medicine order.

--------------------------------- ---------------------------------

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

20 U.S.C. 1232g Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

(a) Conditions for availability of funds to educational agencies or institutions; in-spection and review of education records; specific information to be made available; procedure for access to education records; reasonableness of time for such access; hear-ings; written explanations by parents; defini-tions

(1)

(A) No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educa-tional agency or institution which has a poli-cy of denying, or which effectively prevents, the parents of students who are or have been

3

in attendance at a school of such agency or at such institution, as the case may be, the right to inspect and review the education records of their children. If any material or document in the education record of a stu-dent includes information on more than one student, the parents of one of such students shall have the right to inspect and review only such part of such material or document as relates to such student or to be informed of the specific information contained in such part of such material. Each educational agency or institution shall establish appro-priate procedures for the granting of a re-quest by parents for access to the education records of their children within a reasonable period of time, but in no case more than forty-five days after the request has been made.

[ . . . ]

(3) For the purposes of this section the term educational agency or institution means any public or private agency or insti-tution which is the recipient of funds under any applicable program.

(4)

(A) For the purposes of this section, the term education records means, except as may be provided otherwise in subparagraph (B), those records, files, documents, and other materials which

(i) contain information directly related to a student; and

4

(ii) are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution.

[ . . . ]

(h) Disciplinary records; disclosure

Nothing in this section shall prohibit an educational agency or institution from

(1) including appropriate information in the education record of any student concern-ing disciplinary action taken against such student for conduct that posed a significant risk to the safety or well-being of that stu-dent, other students, or other members of the school community; or

(2) disclosing such information to teach-ers and school officials, including teachers and school officials in other schools, who have legitimate educational interests in the behavior of the student.

Amendment V United States Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same of-fense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property

5

be taken for public use, without just compen-sation.

Amendment XIV United States Constitution

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citi-zens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or proper-ty, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

--------------------------------- ---------------------------------

INTRODUCTION

This Petition represents a decade-long legal ody-ssey for one doctor to practice medicine. In November 2005, Petitioner became involved in a dispute with a fellow classmate at a University of Southern Califor-nia Keck School of Medicine Surfing Club outing in Baja Mexico. In April 2006, Petitioner filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for Central Cali-fornia, alleging that favoritism compelled the Keck School to take excessive disciplinary action against him in adjudicating the dispute. The classmate was the child of an executive director of the National Institutes of Health and White House Office of Sci-ence and Technology Policy Committee on Counter-terrorism. The Dean of Keck had been promoted to the

6

deanship in 2004, after securing $40 million in fund-ing in conjunction with the aforementioned NIH di-rector. Discovery had yielded potentially incriminating email metadata evidence between the Keck Dean and the NIH Director, and Kecks Dean resigned from his new post in 2007 for unspecified reasons.

A settlement agreement was promptly reached in 2007 between the NIH Director, the Keck Dean, and Isaacs that sealed his disciplinary records, in ex-change for dismissal of the individual defendants, i.e., all defendants except Keck itself. The sealing of the records (App. 18 Paragraph 2) was the only consider-ation Isaacs received in his acceptance of that settle-ment.

A global settlement dismissing the lawsuit was reached with Keck in 2008, in exchange acquitting and discharging any and all agreements and contro-versies . . . of any nature whatsoever between Keck and Isaacs. (App. 31 Paragraph 8). Furthermore, the global settlement dismissed all outstanding Keck administrative charges against Isaacs. (App. 36 Paragraph 19). Petitioner, in consultation with his attorney, viewed the four separate clauses as together rendering his matriculation at Keck a legal nullity.

From 2006 through 2010, Isaacs completed his studies at international medical schools, including the Duke/National University of Singapore, and St. Georges London, ultimately ranking above the aver-age neurosurgeon on the standardized and highly competitive United States Medical Licensure Exam.

7

When Petitioner returned to the United States in 2010 to begin medical residency training, somehow his employers were in knowledge and possession of the sealed records from Keck. Petitioner suffered workplace hostility and severe emotional and physical distress from the ensuing mistreatment, and ulti-mately was wrongfully dismissed.

In March 2012, his residency program at Dart-mouth College terminated him for failure to disclose his disciplinary history at Keck USC. In April 2012, the New Hampshire Board of Medicine requested Petitioners reply with regards to his non-disclosure of Keck. Petitioner responded promptly citing the aforementioned settlement agreements, and did not hear anything from the New Hampshire Board of Medicine until eighteen months later, after he made a Title IX complaint (see below) against Dartmouth and the Medical Board. Concurrently in April 2012, the American Academy of Medical Colleges carried out an investigation of the Keck disclosure matter. The AAMC has authority over the nationwide Electronic Residency Application Service, or ERAS, which is the platform for applying to nearly every residency training program in the United States. The AAMC reviewed the Keck Settlement Agreements. Further-more, the AAMC contacted Keck requesting a disci-plinary history; it is believed Keck did not provide any disciplinary history to AAMC, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement.

In June 2012, the AAMC exonerated Petitioner of any wrongdoing with regards to his residency application. Likewise, in July 2012, a New Hamp-shire Unemployment Tribunal similarly found that

8

Petitioner conducted himself correctly in believing his Keck USC history had been a nullity.

In January 2014, a deposition in the United States District Court for New Hampshire took place with deponent Christine Finn, Petitioners Medical Residency Program Director at Dartmouth-Hitchcock. Finn had direct hire/fire authority over her residents, including Petitioner Isaacs. In the deposition, Finn stated

If ERAS has determined that it [Keck] did not need to be listed under your educational experience, I would accept ERASs qualifica-tion.

Despite endorsing acceptance of the outcome of ERAS/AAMCs investigation, Finn and Dartmouth never reversed her decision to terminate the Petition-er. To this day, five years after medical school gradua-tion, Isaacs is unable to practice medicine.

--------------------------------- ---------------------------------

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In April 2012, the New Hampshire Board of Medicine (the Board) first notified Petitioner Isaacs that they were reviewing his New Hampshire medical license application for alleged non-disclosure of his disciplinary history at Keck USC. Isaacs promptly replied to the Board that the matter had become nullified, and that he had already been exonerated by two investigations carried out by the American

9

Association of Medical Colleges and under oath by the New Hampshire Unemployment Tribunal.

Isaacs received no further contact from the Board of Medicine until August 2013, shortly after he made allegations that 1) the Board of Medicine and Dart-mouth College failed to investigate a Title IX com-plaint regarding mistreatment he suffered during his residency, and 2) Dartmouth President Jim Yong Kim had been negligent or directly culpable for email evidence spoliation regarding the alleged abuse.

New Hampshire Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Cahill telephoned Petitioner Isaacs in August 2013, claiming to represent the NH Board of Medi-cine. He requested documentation of all settlement agreements with Keck USC, as well as the AAMC investigation. Isaacs complied and transmitted all these documents to Cahill no later than September 2013.

In February 2014, the New Hampshire Board of Medicine revoked Isaacs professional license and published the sealed Keck records on the Internet. The Boards determination ignored ample evidence Petitioner had sent to Cahill. Specifically, the Board falsely declared that there is no provision sealing the [Keck] records (App. 9) despite the obvious fact that they were sealed.

Although the Board wrongly declared that the Keck records had never been sealed, the following footnote (App. 12) on the Boards order offered critical insight into their deliberations:

10

1 Exhibit 2 does indicate that on June 22, 2006 Respondent appealed the decision asking for a reversal. Exhibit 3, at paragraph 19 references the potentiality of effecting the dismissal of all outstanding administrative charges. There, however, is no credible evi-dence before this Board which suggests Re-spondents termination from the school was dismissed. Further we are aware of no New Hampshire requirement that would equate a civil settlement to the annulment of a crimi-nal record pursuant to RSA 651:5, X.

The Boards Order plainly acknowledged that Paragraph 19 of the 2008 Settlement Agreement effects the dismissal of all outstanding administra-tive charges. The Order then surprisingly states there is no credible evidence the termination was dismissed, suggesting a federal lawsuit settlement agreement signed by a senior officer of USC is not credible evidence, and moreover, that Isaacs inno-cence or guilt depends upon Kecks compliance with the settlement agreement.

This suggests some malice of intent to the Boards reprimand. Knowing there was no mandatory review of their decision, and the existence statutory immunity, they plainly acknowledged the dismissal of outstanding administrative charges, then reprimand-ed Petitioner for not disclosing these dismissed ad-ministrative charges. More egregiously, the Board characterized this as a criminal matter in stating that they know of no New Hampshire requirement to equate a civil settlement to annulment of a criminal

11

record. Petitioner never had a criminal record, yet the Board chose to publish on their website a document suggesting that he did. In reality, the NH Board has refused to accept a pro se settlement agreement reached in due process through the United States District Court for Central California.

As of filing today April 8, 2015, the Board action was published on the internet but never properly served upon Isaacs as required by New Hampshire RSA 329:18(a)(IV):

Final disciplinary actions and final actions in other adjudicatory proceedings shall be reduced to writing and served upon the par-ties. Such decisions shall not be public until they are served upon the parties.

NH Assistant Attorney General Cahill resigned shortly after this matter concluded, despite being newly appointed to handle Board cases only one year earlier.

--------------------------------- ---------------------------------

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

I. New Hampshire violated the Fourteenth Amendments Substantive Due Process Re-quirements in Disregarding Keck and The Petitioners Freedom of Contract

In 2006, Petitioner sought intervention from the federal court system to redress unlawful or excessive disciplinary proceedings that Keck had instituted against him. Due process ensued through the Federal

12

Rules of Civil Procedure, and ultimately, the lawsuit terminated in 2008 when the parties reached a set-tlement agreement.

Six years later, the New Hampshire Board of Medicine actively disregarded two federal settlement agreements between Petitioner Isaacs and the Keck School of Medicine. In these settlement agreements, the parties agreed that Keck would a) dismiss any administrative charges against Isaacs, b) discharge any contractual agreements of any nature whatso-ever, including the enrollment matriculation agree-ment, and c) acquit Isaacs of any and all allegations and controversies.

It seems, for what Petitioner believes to be retal-iatory intent, the New Hampshire Board of Medicine sought to deny Petitioner the benefits of the parties freedom of contract. In doing so, New Hampshire has violated the substantive due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Board of Medicine rescinded Isaacs medical license, rather than accept the contractual resolution he reached with Keck.

II. New Hampshire Failed to Uphold Petition-

ers Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process Rights

It is well established that minimal procedural due process must occur before a state may deprive an individual of property or liberty. In the present case, Petitioner provided the Board of Medicine with ample evidence that Keck had sealed his disciplinary

13

records. In claiming there is no provision sealing the disciplinary records, when there plainly was such provision, they actively chose to limit procedural due process and restrict this evidence from entering the February 2014 hearing.

Furthermore, the February 2014 hearing pro-ceeded during a snowstorm and Petitioner was un-able to safely transit from Pennsylvania to New Hampshire during the storm. The Board denied any rescheduling, thus denying the basic due process requirement of allowing verbal testimony. Similarly, the Board denied medical accommodation of permit-ting a video-conferencing appearance.

Finally, the Board never served the Order upon Isaacs, as required under NH RSA. The Board of Medicine repeatedly demonstrated willful disregard and/or incompetence with even the most basic due process requirements. It is worth noting that the Board of Medicine was disbanded by the NH legisla-ture in 2006 for concern over its ability to conduct due process in an unbiased manner.

The settlement agreement dismissed any admin-istrative charges Keck made against Isaacs and rendered the entire matter a nullity. The New Hamp-shire Board of Medicine even acknowledged the dismissal of these charges, but nonetheless proceeded to deprive Isaacs of liberty and property, namely, his medical practice.

In denying the effects of the two federal settle-ment agreements and depriving Isaacs of his right to

14

livelihood, the State of New Hampshire (via the Board of Medicine) has violated the procedural due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. The New Hampshire Supreme Court erred in failing to recognize this, and a writ of certiorari is appro-priate.

III. New Hampshire Interfered with the Peti-

tioners Fifth Amendment Due Process Rights

In their Order revoking Isaacs license, the Board states we are aware of no New Hampshire require-ment that would equate a civil settlement [to] an-nulment. . . . In other words, the Board of Medicine declared that it has no requirement to respect the due process and outcome of the 2006 federal legal pro-ceeding. The Board, for whatever reason, appears un-happy with the settlement language reached between Keck and Isaacs. Even after acknowledging that Isaacs administrative disciplinary charges had been (or should have been) dismissed, the Board stubborn-ly declared it had no New Hampshire requirement to accept the federal settlement agreement.

In sum, the State of New Hampshire actively interfered with Isaacs Fifth Amendment due process rights, because it has refused to accept, and appar-ently wishes to subvert, the consideration he received via a federal court settlement.

15

IV. Sealing Isaacs Disciplinary Records Under FERPA Amounted to Expungement Under Federal Law; The NH Board Reprimanded Isaacs for Adhering to A Federal Court Or-dered Settlement

FERPA asserts that there shall be no restriction in a schools obligation to disclose disciplinary records to teachers and officials in other schools, who have legitimate educational interests in the behavior of the student. In reaching a settlement with Isaacs, Keck specifically indicated that it would no longer release records, absent a subpoena. In other words, USC indicated that the contested disciplinary history would no longer be subject to strict requirements to release the records under appropriate circumstances. After two years of litigation, USC determined it was appropriate to no longer release the contested records to entities such as AAMC or the NH Board, entities that usually would receive disciplinary records.

In theory, Keck effectively expunged Isaacs disciplinary records by no longer defining them as part of his FERPA student record. The alternative is to believe that USC/Keck risked its own accreditation status by refusing to release disciplinary records in compelling circumstances. In practice, Keck did not release any disciplinary records when requested to do so by the American Academy of Medical Colleges. Thus, there is no ambiguity that from Kecks perspec-tive, the disputed disciplinary actions were no longer part of Petitioners official FERPA record.

16

The New Hampshire Board of Medicine rescinded Isaacs license for abiding by the same logic and behavior as Keck to comply with a federal settlement agreement. In fact, Isaacs was under order by a United States District Court to comply with the settlement terms and agreement. New Hampshire thereby deprived Petitioner of liberty and property for merely complying with a United States District Court order.

V. The Board of Medicine Possessed No Veri-

fiable Evidence of the Disputed Keck Dis-ciplinary History

As a state licensure Board, presumably the New Hampshire Board of Medicine could have requested Keck to issue a current, verifiable statement regard-ing Petitioners academic and/or purported discipli-nary history. Realizing that Keck would not do so, as they hadnt issued any statement to the AAMC, the Board of Medicine instead decided to rely on PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) dating back to 2006 in the Central California district. Hence the NH Board relied on contested and outdated legal pleadings of which it had absolutely no privity.

By failing to offer any authenticated proof of Petitioners history at Keck, the Board again failed to meet basic elements of procedural due process. The Boards use of outdated and annulled academic rec-ords found in 2006 PACER documents should not be permitted, especially when such use of PACER clearly

17

was intended to circumvent Keck/USCs intent to seal the records.

VI. Even arguendo assumption that NH didnt

need to respect a federal settlement con-tract, No Evidence Was Presented that Petitioner was guilty of professional mis-conduct

The Board assumed authority to revoke Peti-tioners license under NH RSA 329:17 IV(a), for instances entailing knowingly providing false in-formation or material omission. Even if, arguendo, the Board is not required to view the Keck discipli-nary records as an expunged controversy, Petitioner had submitted ample evidence to the Board of his belief that four separate clauses of two distinct set-tlement agreements cleared his Keck record. A mis-taken interpretation is far from knowingly providing false information to the Board.

Isaacs had provided the Board with a copy of Attorney Michael Paynes affidavit, which testified as to Petitioners belief, after consultation with legal counsel, that he was not required to disclose a nulli-ty. The Board chose not to admit this evidence.

Likewise, the Board was aware that Isaacs had testified under oath regarding this matter at a New Hampshire Unemployment Tribunal, which ruled in his favor. Finally, the Board was aware that AAMC investigated this matter and ruled in Petitioners favor. All of this evidence was never admitted into the

18

February 2014 hearing, despite email records proving submission thereupon.

In sum, the Board cherry-picked evidence and employed a guilty until proven innocent standard that violated Fourteenth Amendment due process.

--------------------------------- ---------------------------------

CONCLUSION

As the New Hampshire ruling currently stands, Petitioner is effectively barred from resuming his medical practice. The impact to the country is the loss of potentially thirty years of medical practice and research by an individual who has demonstrated a) his ability to succeed during four years of medical school clerkship evaluations as well as top placement on nationwide standardized exams, and perhaps more difficult b) perseverance and commitment despite a decade of legal obstacles.

In terms of resources, at least a million dollars have been spent on federal training subsidies and federal student loans to support Petitioners medical career, which shall be lost should Petitioner be dis-qualified from the profession by the New Hampshire board.

During the prolonged state of legal limbo involv-ing the Petitioner, numerous venues have struggled with the implications of a settlement agreement that was written, in the words of Kecks attorneys, to be intentionally vague. The seemingly unbiased American

19

Academy of Medical Colleges, as well as a New Hampshire Unemployment Tribunal, interpreted the settlements as clearing Petitioners record at Keck.

Dartmouth College is believed to have spent upwards of two million dollars in legal fees since 2011 on this and related matters. They remain unsure of how to interpret the Keck settlement Dartmouths Director Christine Finn stated in her deposition that she did not understand the legal meaning of the settlement agreements, but that she agreed with AAMCs qualifications to interpret it correctly.

The New Hampshire Board, on the other hand, acknowledged the effects of the settlement to include dismissing all administrative charges against Peti-tioner, but nonetheless proceeded to revoke Isaacs medical license.

Absent guidance from this Honorable Court, this matter could conceivably continue for an unspecified continued duration. As Petitioner applies to hundreds of medical residencies, spanning from small commu-nity hospitals to larger academic medical centers such as that operated by Dartmouth College, there is understandable aversion for any program to want to involve itself, or its respective state medical board, in a dispute well-known in medical academia to have already cost Dartmouth years of legal wrangling and associated tangible and intangible costs.

In terms of public policy, there is a sense that Petitioner has been treated as a second-class citizen for over a decade due to his pro se status. Neither

20

the compelling arguments he advanced nor the edu-cation level he attained sufficed to prevent institu-tions such as Dartmouth and the New Hampshire Board from ostracizing and even retaliating against a doctor who had a pro se status during medical school. Thereby, this Petitioner enters his plea to this Honorable Court to review these matters and issue any and all writs necessary to uphold due justice.

Respectfully submitted on this 8th day of April, 2015.

DR. JEFFREY D. ISAACS

Petitioner, pro se

App. 1

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0668, Appeal of Jeffrey D. Isaacs, M.D., the court on January 8, 2015, issued the following order:

Appeal from administrative agency is declined. See Rule 10(1).

Under Supreme Court Rule 10, the supreme court has discretion to decline an appeal from an administrative agency. No appeal, however, is de-clined except by unanimous vote of the court with at least three justices participating.

This matter was considered by each justice whose name appears below. If any justice who reviewed this case believed the appeal should have been accepted, this case would have been accepted and scheduled for briefing.

Declined.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, and Lynn, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox, Clerk

Distribution: New Hampshire Board of Medicine, 13-07 Dr. Jeffrey Isaacs Attorney General File

App. 2

Before the New Hampshire Board of Medicine

Concord, New Hampshire

In the Matter of: Docket #: 13-07 Jeffrey D. Isaacs, M.D. License No.: RT-2198 (Adjudicatory/Disciplinary Proceeding)

FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

Before the New Hampshire Board of Medicine (Board) is an adjudicatory/disciplinary proceeding in the matter of Jeffrey D. Isaacs, M.D. (Respondent or Dr. Isaacs).

Background Information

(Procedural History and Motions)

The Board of Medicine (Board) granted Dr. Isaacs a Resident Training license pursuant to N.H. Admin. Rules Med 305.04, in May 2011. The license was granted where the application revealed Dr. Isaacs was pursuing post graduate training at the Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center (DHMC) in the psychiatry residency program (Program).

In March 2012 the Board received information from DHMC indicating that Dr. Isaacs had been terminated from the Program where Respondent had allegedly omitted material facts from his Application for Training License for Residents and Graduate Fellows and the supplement filed along with the application. As a result of this information, the Board

App. 3

commenced an investigation to determine whether Respondent committed professional misconduct pursuant to RSA 329:17, VI and RSA 329:18.

The investigation revealed the following:

Between August 2005 and June 2006 Respondent attended the Keck School of Medicine, a medical education institution, at the University of Southern California (USC). In February 2006 the Keck School suspended Respondent due to behavior-related issues, and ultimately the School expelled him. In June 2010 Respondent received a medical degree from the American University of the Caribbean. On May 18, 2011, Respondent filed his application for training license with the Board having been enrolled in the Program at DHMC.

The application required Respondent to disclose medical schools attended. Respondent listed the American University of the Caribbean but failed to disclose attendance at the Keck School. Additionally, Respondent answered No to a question on the supplement to the application which asked whether he had ever been reprimanded, sanctioned, restrict-ed or disciplined in any activities involving medical education or practice.

Given the investigatory revelations the Board found reasonable basis for commencing an adjudicatory/ disciplinary proceeding against Respondent. On October 7, 2013 the Board issued a Notice of Hearing (Notice) commencing a proceeding pursuant to RSA 329:18-a and N.H. Admin. R. Med 206 for February 5,

App. 4

2014 at 1:00 p.m. The purpose of the hearing was to determine whether in May 2011 Respondent engaged in professional misconduct by submitting false infor-mation to the Board and for failing to fully disclose all previous medical schools attended. The Notice further indicated that Respondent could be subjected to disciplinary sanctions pursuant to RSA 329:17, VII. The Notice also informed Respondent that he may be represented by counsel at the hearing, at his own expense; and that failure to appear may result in the hearing being held in absentia with disciplinary sanctions imposed without further notice or oppor-tunity to be heard.

On January 29, 2014, at 3:14 p.m., Respondent sent the Board via e-mail, a so-called Motion to Stay Hearing or Appear by Teleconference. The e-mail indicated Respondent was moving to stay the pro-ceeding because he had pending federal litigation in the Pennsylvania District Court. The e-mail further indicated that Respondent entered into a settlement agreement with USC which he alleges sealed his disciplinary records. He further claimed that the AAMC and NHES . . . both investigated this issue already and agreed with [him]. He additionally alleged that the Board failed to investigate his allega-tions against DHMC, including that he was defraud-ed, instructed to perform unnecessary [medical] exams and abandoned as a patient.

Respondents January 29, 2014 e-mail also noted that he was taking action against the Board for what appears to be punitive actions against [him] and he

App. 5

requested that the Board defer to the legal authority of the federal judiciary system and postpone [the] hearing. Respondent also wrote that he was not able to drive to New Hampshire for medical reasons, that he conducted three depositions via Skype and that if the stay was denied he requested to appear by tele-phone or video conference.

On February 3, 2014 hearing counsel objected to the request. The objection indicated that Respondent failed to comply with Board rules, in that any re-quests to continue or postpone are required to be filed at least ten days prior to the scheduled hearing. Additionally, hearing counsel noted further procedur-al issues with the request; specifically that it did not comply with the provisions of N.H. Admin. R. Med 204, et. seq.

The presiding officer denied the request to Stay the proceeding, finding first that Respondent failed to follow Board procedural regulation and for the rea-sons articulated in hearing counsels objection, the so-called motion should be denied. The Board found unpersuasive the notion that the case should be stayed because of a pending federal lawsuit in Penn-sylvania. Moreover, Respondent provided no infor-mation relative to his illness. Respondent was informed of the denial on February 3, 2014 at approx-imately 4:30 p.m. He subsequently forwarded another e-mail on February 5, 2014, at approximately 6:00 a.m. indicating that a winter storm and his current automobile situation would preclude him from at-tending the hearing.

App. 6

The hearing went forward as scheduled on Feb-ruary 5, 2014, commencing just after 1:00 p.m. Board members present included:

Mark Sullivan, P.A. John H. Wheeler, D.O. Robert M. Vidaver, M.D. Louis E. Rosenthall, M.D. Gail Barba, Public Member Edmund J. Waters, Jr., Public Member

Gail Barba, Public Member, served as presiding officer. Respondent did not appear, and Attorney Jeff Cahill appeared as hearing counsel.

Discussion and Rulings

It is first necessary to discuss Respondents request for a stay and his decision not to attend the hearing. Regardless of the procedural irregularities concerning Respondents request to stay the proceed-ing sent via e-mail on January 29, 2014 the Board finds substantively, the rational [sic] for the request to be both lacking in factual detail and unpersuasive. The issue before the Board is a narrow one. It re-volves around whether Respondent violated RSA 329:17, VI (a) by failing to disclose, in 2011 on the residency training application and supplement, his attendance and dismissal from the Keck School of Medicine. The fact that Respondent named the Board in a federal lawsuit that is currently pending is of no moment in the determination of that issue. Moreover, pursuant to RSA 329:17, IX, no civil action shall be maintained

App. 7

against the board with regard to any activity or action taken in the performance of its statutory duties. See RSA 329:17, IX. The Board thus deter-mined it was appropriate to proceed.

The Board finds that timely notice had been provided to the Respondent with regard to the hear-ing. Here, where Respondent had over four months to prepare and attend or timely ask for a continuance, his eleventh hour request to stay the proceeding was without merit. Had there been some legitimate medi-cal reason that had been articulated by the Respon-dent, the Board would have given that issue consideration. Respondent, however, simply indicated that he had medical reasons that precluded him from driving to New Hampshire, which he then did not reassert on February 5, 2014 when he provided notice that he would not attend the hearing, citing instead to weather conditions and automobile issues. Peti-tioner provided no reasonable grounds for continuing the hearing, nor did he ask for reconsideration, indicating that weather given the forecast would prevent him from attending.

The Board opened the hearing just after 1:00 p.m. on February 5, 2014. It first entered Exhibits A and B, Respondents e-mails dated January 29 and February 5, as exhibits for Respondent. It also ac-cepted Exhibits 1-3 from hearing counsel. Exhibit 1 is Respondents 2011 NH Application for Residency Training License; Exhibit 2 is an excerpt of a March 1, 2007 court order in Isaacs v. USC; and Exhibit 3, the April 2008 Confidential Settlement in Isaacs v.

App. 8

USC. These exhibits along with notice of witnesses to be presented were provided to Respondent on Janu-ary 31, 2014.

Hearing counsel also presented the testimony of Dori Lefevbre, Board Investigator. Ms. Lefevbre testified that she was able to obtain the documents that were marked as exhibits 2 and 3 as public rec-ords available on-line from the federal court system. She explained that the documents reflect that Re-spondent was dismissed from the Keck School. In fact, Exhibit 2, the California Federal District Court, Central Districts Order on a Motion to Dismiss reveals that Respondent alleged he suffered from PTSD and an organic brain injury and in 2005 began his studies at Keck School of Medicine. The Order further indicates that Respondent had numerous social problems with his classmates and engaged in offensive messaging to a female classmate that Re-spondent attributes to his Bipolar II diagnosis. The Order indicated Respondent alleged that several defendants attempted to harm his standing at USC, that Respondent attended a disciplinary hearing before the Student Performance Committee where he did not contest stalking allegations against him; and that he was suspended and ultimately dismissed from the school. The Order at Exhibit 2 also indicated that Plaintiff requested that USC postpone the dis-missal hearing scheduled for June 7, 2006, but that the hearing went ahead as scheduled.

Ms. Lefevbre also testified that she obtained Exhibit 3, as a public court record from the federal

App. 9

courts on-line system, which purportedly is the confidential settlement agreement between Respon-dent and USC. The document at page 1, indicates that Respondent understood and agreed that his education at USC has ended irrevocably and forever and will not be resumed again at any time in the future.

In Exhibit A, Respondent alleges that the settle-ment agreement with USC clearly sealed his disci-plinary records, and a subsequent agreement annulled all contracts and acquitted all controversies with USC. It appears this is the reason Respondent contends he was not required to disclose the Keck School information on his training license application. A review, however, of Exhibit 3 indicates that it is only information related to the lawsuit, and the negotiation of the Settlement Agreements terms and conditions that is confidential, along with the mone-tary settlement amount. There is no provision in Exhibit 3 sealing the disciplinary records.

Exhibit 1, page 4 asks whether the applicant has been reprimanded, sanctioned, restricted or disci-plined in any activities involving medical education . . . and Respondent certified, under penalty of perjury that he had not, where he marked No to the question. Whether Respondent entered into a settle-ment agreement does not negate the fact that he attended a medical educational institution which ultimately dismissed him and will never allow him to return. The fact remains that there was discipline and expulsion from a medical educational institution

App. 10

notwithstanding the representation that the records have been sealed or a subsequent agreement an-nulled all contracts. That Respondent brought a lawsuit against USC, which the parties settled and where USC specifically denied liability for the claims against it does not immunize Respondent from an-swering the application question truthfully.

The question on the application did not require Respondent to divulge information regarding the Confidential Settlement Agreement. The answer in the license application was, however, required to be correct. Respondent could have chosen to say, Yes which would have likely given him an opportunity to explain; or he could have indicated that he contends he was wrongfully dismissed.

RSA 329:17, IV (a) reads that disciplinary action may be taken against a licensee where the Board finds the person has knowingly provided false infor-mation during any application for professional licen-sure . . . whether by making any affirmative statement which was false at the time it was made or by failing to disclose any fact material to the applica-tion. The Board finds that Respondent was required to truthfully divulge an answer to question 3 on the supplement to the application. The Board also finds that Respondent was required to list all medical schools attended. The application form and the sup-plement do not distinguish and inform the applicant that an answer is not required if some record was sealed or records were nullified by operation of law.

App. 11

Here, Respondent was aware that he attended the Keck School, he was further aware that he was sanctioned or restricted or disciplined in activi-ties involving medical education. As such, Respon-dent deliberately, consciously, and with purpose of design answered question 3 falsely. Likewise, it is a material fact that Respondent attended a medical school other than American University of the Carib-bean. Inaccuracies in the information provided which are false, constitute a valid basis for discipline and license denial.

In this case, we need not take action on the license itself since pursuant to N.H. Admin R. Med 305.04(b) training licenses are only valid for the practice of medicine when inter alia the licensee is practicing under the auspices of the training pro-gram. See N.H. Admin R. Med 305.04(b)(1). Here, there was evidence that the DHMC terminated Respondent from their Program. Accordingly, the license is revoked as of the date of termination; as such it was canceled by operation of law.

We, however, believe a reprimand is appropriate in this situation. Respondent treated his time at the Keck School as if it never occurred. He provided no documents to suggest or provided no credible evi-dence regarding the dissolution of his record of at-tendance at the Keck School. Even where Respondent chose not to attend the hearing, he still could have provided documentary support for his position in advance of the hearing. N.H. Admin. R. Med 206.09 (c). For example, he could have submitted his exhibits

App. 12

supporting the statements found in Exhibit A, but chose instead an alternate course of action. Exhibit 3 certainly does not suggest the nullity of the sanction or discipline, where Exhibit 2 clearly evinces Re-spondent was dismissed from the medical school on June 13, 2006.1 We find this Agreement does not insulate Respondent from having to affirmatively disclose his attendance. As such, where we also find the evidence submitted supports the conclusion that Respondent knowingly made a false statement and further failed to disclose a material fact, the license of Dr. Isaacs is REVOKED and he is REPRIMANDED.

\*BY ORDER OF THE BOARD

Dated: 3/11/2014 /s/ Penny Taylor Penny Taylor, Administrator

Authorized Representative of the New Hampshire Board of Medicine

\*Michael Barr, M.D., Board Member, recused.

1 Exhibit 2 does indicate that on June 22, 2006 Respondent appealed the decision asking for a reversal. Exhibit 3, at para-graph 19 references the potentiality of effecting the dismissal of all outstanding administrative charges. There, however, is no credible evidence before this Board which suggests Respondents termination from the school was dismissed. Further we are aware of no New Hampshire requirement that would equate a civil settlement to the annulment of a criminal record pursuant to RSA 651:5, X.

App. 13

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: Motion to Withdraw Publication of Li-cense Revocation

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taylor, Penny Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:13 PM To: Jeffrey D. Isaacs

Dr. Isaacs,

The New Hampshire Board of Medicine, at its No-vember 6, 2014 meeting, voted unanimous to deny your Motion to Withdraw Publication of License Revocation received in this office on October 11, 2014.

Sincerely,

Penny Taylor, Administrator

NH Board of Medicine

121 South Fruit Street, Suite 301

Concord, NH 03301-2412

(603) 271-1205

Penny.Taylor@nh.gov

App. 14

Jeffrey D. Isaacs, M.D. v. Christine Finn, M.D. Dartmouth Hitchcock January 15, 2014 Medical Center, et al

* * *

[297] A. Again, I cant really say to the investi-gative quality of it. If ERAS has determined that it did not need to be listed under your educational experience, I would accept ERASs qualification.

* * *

App. 15

Affidavit of Michael H. Payne, Esquire

I, Michael H. Payne, Esquire, being duly sworn, hereby depose and say:

1. I am an attorney-at-law and I am duly li-censed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Currently, I am a partner at Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, PC, a law firm in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

2. Previously, and during the time period from May 2005 to April 2009, I was a partner in the law firm of Payne Hackenbracht & Sullivan, located in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania.

3. During that time period I represented Jeffrey Isaacs with regard to certain matters involving the University of Southern California (USC).

4. I have been informed, by Dr. Isaacs, that he has received notice of an investigation of his ERAS 2012 application, and that there is a question about whether Dr. Isaacs omitted information on his appli-cation regarding his alleged attendance at USCs Keck School of Medicine from August 2005 to June 2006.

5. Dr. Isaacs is in a difficult position regard to his ability to answer questions regarding the Keck School because he became involved in a dispute with the University that is the subject of a confidentiality agreement.

App. 16

6. Although it is true the Dr. Isaacs was admit-ted to the School, his enrollment was terminated during the first semester, without any subsequent finding of fault by either party, and his dispute with the University was resolved by agreement of the parties.

7. I represented Dr. Isaacs with regard to the negotiation of a settlement agreement which both parties agreed was to remain confidential.

8. In view of the settlement, Dr. Isaacs correctly determined that his attendance at the Keck School was a nullity and that he not was not required to list the Keck School on any application that required a listing of prior educational institutions he attended and that, in fact, he would be in violation of the terms of the confidentiality agreement if he listed the Keck School on any future application or similar document.

9. In my opinion, the purported omission by Dr. Isaacs of any reference to the Keck School was not intended to mislead or deceive the AAMC, but was simply something that he was required to do by virtue of a confidentiality agreement. In fact, it appears that a violation of the confidentiality agree-ment by another party may have resulted in the improper disclosure of information to the AAMC.

10. It is my further opinion, as the attorney who represented Dr. Isaacs during the settlement negotia-tions, that he acted properly in treating any matters associated with the Keck School as a nullity. In my

App. 17

view, he should not be penalized for abiding by the terms of a confidentiality agreement.

I declare that the foregoing is true and cor-rect to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Dated: 4-30-12 /s/ Michael H. Payne Michael H. Payne, Esq. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30th day of April , 2012.

/s/ Melinda T. Norcross Notary Public

[Notary Stamp]

App. 18

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Jeffrey Isaacs (Isaacs), on the one hand, and University of Southern California (USC), on the other hand, have agreed to enter into this Confiden-tial Settlement Agreement and Release (the Agree-ment).

1. Dismissal With Prejudice.

Isaacs agrees that he will execute and deliver for filing to counsel of record for USC, Robin D. Dal Soglio of Dal Soglio & Martens LLP, the Dismissal with Prejudice (attached hereto as Exhibit A) of Robert Baughman, Brian E. Henderson, Peter J. Katsufrakis and James M.H. Ball (together, the Individual Defendants) from United States District Court Case No. CV-06-3338 GAF (Ex). Counsel for USC will file the Dismissal with Prejudice with the Court.

2. Sealing of Disciplinary Records.

In exchange for the Dismissal with Prejudice of the Individual Defendants, referenced above, Defen-dant USC agrees that commencing immediately upon the execution of this Settlement Agreement and receipt of the signed Dismissal with Prejudice, USC will not release or disclose Isaacs disciplinary records to any third party, including but not limited to other educational institutions and/or potential employers,

App. 19

unless it receives written consent from Isaacs or a subpoena or court order.

3. Non-Admission of Liability.

This Agreement shall not in any way be construed as an admission by USC or any of the Individual Defendants that they have harassed, discriminated against or retaliated against Isaacs in any way, or otherwise acted wrongfully with respect to Isaacs. USC and the Individual Defendants specifically deny that they have any liability to or have done any wrongful acts against Isaacs.

4. No Other or Future Lawsuits, Charges,

Claims.

With the exception of United States District Court Case No. CV-06-3338 GAF (Ex) (the Lawsuit), Isaacs represents that he has not filed any other lawsuits, charges, claims for arbitration, complaints, or appeals of any kind with any court or administra-tive or governmental agency against the Individual Defendants or any other persons or entities released herein, and he agrees that he will not file any law-suits, charges, complaints, or appeals at any time hereafter based on, referring to, or incorporating any events, acts or omissions through and including the date hereof.

If Isaacss representations in this paragraph prove to be false, or if he violates the promises made

App. 20

in this paragraph and files a lawsuit, charge, com-plaint, or appeal of any kind with any court or admin-istrative or governmental agency against the Individual Defendants, based on any events, acts or omissions through and including the date hereof, Isaacs will pay for all costs and losses, including actual attorneys fees, incurred by Defendants in connection with said lawsuit, charge, complaint, or appeal.

5. Complete Release by Isaacs.

As a material inducement to USC to enter into this Agreement, Isaacs hereby irrevocably and un-conditionally waives and releases all rights and claims, known and unknown, which he may have against each and all of the Individual Defendants and each of their respective assigns, agents, representa-tives, attorneys, spouses, children and other family members, and all persons acting by, through, under or in concert with any of them, from the beginning of time to the date Isaacs signs this Agreement. This includes but is not limited to a release of all rights and claims Isaacs may have against the Individual Defendants under any federal or state antidiscrimi-nation statutes, including but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilita-tion Act of 1973, as well as all claims, known and unknown, which he may have for breach of contract, express or implied; breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and retaliation, defamation, conspiracy, infliction of emotional distress, invasion of

App. 21

privacy, assault, battery, misrepresentation, or any other tort.

6. Knowing and Voluntary Waiver of

Known and Unknown Claims

Isaacs agrees that, as a condition of this Agree-ment, he expressly releases all rights and claims that he does not know about, as well as those he knows about. Thus, consistent with the terms of his release, Isaacs expressly waives all rights under Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California, which reads as follows:

A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of exe-cuting the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.

7. Encouragement to Consult With Attor-

ney

Counsel for USC has strongly encouraged Isaacs to consult with an attorney before signing this Agreement, and Isaacs hereby acknowledges that he has either fully consulted with an attorney prior to signing or has knowingly and voluntarily decided not to do so.

App. 22

8. No Representations

The parties hereto represent and agree that no promises, statements or inducements have been made to them which caused them to sign this Agreement other than those expressly stated in this Agreement.

9. Successors

This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and upon their respective heirs, administrators, representatives, executors, successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and others released herein, their representatives, execu-tors, successors and assigns.

10. Confidentiality of This Agreement

a. As a material inducement for USC to enter into this Agreement, Isaacs agrees not to disclose the negotiation, terms, or conditions of this Agreement to anyone other than Isaacss attorneys and parents (hereafter referred to as Isaacss Confidants) and, even as to such a person, only if such persons agree to honor this confidentiality requirement. Violation of this confidentiality requirement by any of Isaacss Confidants will be treated as a violation of this Agreement by Isaacs.

b. This section does not prohibit disclosure of the negotiation, terms or conditions of this Agreement to the extent necessary legally to enforce this Agree-ment, nor does it prohibit disclosures to the extent

App. 23

otherwise required by law (but only if the enforcing party notifies the other party and its attorneys of a disclosure obligation or request within three business days after he/it learns of it and does not actively oppose the party taking all steps it deems to be appropriate to prevent or limit the required disclo-sure).

c. If Isaacs is asked about his claims against the Individual Defendants, and only if asked, he may state only that the matter has been resolved.

11. Newly Discovered Facts

Isaacs acknowledges that he might hereafter discover facts different from or in addition to those he now knows or believes to be true with respect to a claim or claims released herein, and he expressly agrees to assume the risk of possible discovery of additional or different facts, and agrees that this Agreement shall be and remain effective in all re-spects regardless of such additional or different discovered facts.

12. Voluntary Participation in This Agree-

ment

The parties acknowledge that they have thor-oughly discussed all aspects of their rights and this Agreement with their respective attorneys, or have knowingly and voluntary chosen not to do so, and that they have carefully read and fully understand all

App. 24

of the provisions of this Agreement, that they have been given a reasonable period of time to consider signing this Agreement, and that they are voluntarily signing this Agreement.

13. Governing Law

This Agreement is made and entered into in the State of California and shall in all respects be inter-preted, enforced and governed under the laws of said State.

14. Further Necessary Actions

The parties agree, without further consideration, to sign and/or cause to be signed, and to deliver to counsel for one another, any other documents and to take any other action as may be. necessary to fulfill their obligations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, effecting the dismissal of all outstand-ing administrative charges.

15. Severability

Should any of the provisions in this Agreement, other than the Release set forth in Paragraph 5, be declared or be determined to be illegal or invalid, all remaining parts, terms or provisions shall be valid, and the illegal or invalid part, term or provision shall be deemed not to be a part of this Agreement.

App. 25

16. Proper Construction

a. The language of all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be construed as a whole according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any of the parties.

b. As used in this Agreement, the term or shall be deemed to include the term and/or and the singular or plural number shall be deemed to include the other whenever the context so indicates or re-quires.

c. The paragraph headings used in this Agree-ment are intended solely for convenience of reference and shall not in any manner amplify, limit, modify or otherwise be used in the interpretation of any of the provisions hereof.

17. Entire Agreement

This Agreement is the entire agreement between Isaacs and USC and fully supersedes any and all prior agreements or understandings between the parties pertaining to its subject matter.

App. 26

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. THIS CONFI-DENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE INCLUDES A RELEASE OF ALL KNOWN AND UNKNOWN CLAIMS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS.

Executed at Berwyn Pennsylvania, this 29th day of August 2007.

By: /s/ Jeffrey D Isaacs Jeffrey Isaacs Executed at Los Angeles, California, this 31st day of August 2007.

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

By: /s/ Dennis F Dougherty Dennis F. Dougherty

Senior Vice President for Finance

App. 27

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE

The University of Southern California (USC) and Jeffrey Isaacs (Isaacs) have agreed to enter into this Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (the Agreement).

1. Dismissal With Prejudice.

Isaacs agrees that he will execute and deliver for filing to counsel of record for USC, Robin D. Dal Soglio of Dal Soglio & Martens LLP, the Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (attached hereto as Exhibit A) of USC from United States District Court Case No. CV-06-3338 GAF (Ex). Counsel for USC will file the Dismissal with Prejudice with the Court.

2. No Future Application to University.

Isaacs understands and agrees that his education at USC has ended irrevocably and forever and will not be resumed again at any time in the future. Isaacs further agrees that he will not apply for or otherwise seek admission to USC or any related or affiliated entity at any time in the future, under any circumstances whatsoever.

3. Non-Admission of Liability.

This Agreement shall not in any way be con-strued as an admission by USC that it has discrimi-nated against or retaliated against Isaacs in any way,

App. 28

or otherwise acted wrongfully with respect to Isaacs or any other person, or that Isaacs has any rights whatsoever against it. USC specifically denies that it has any liability to or has done any wrongful acts against Isaacs or any other person.

4. Benefits for Isaacs.

Within fourteen (14) days of USCs receipt of the original of this Agreement signed by Isaacs and including executed copies of Exhibits A and B, USC will transmit to Isaacs one check made payable to Isaacs in the gross amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000).

5. Responsibility for Taxes.

Isaacs understands and acknowledges that USC will report the payment described in paragraph 4 to the appropriate taxing authorities as required by law. Isaacs agrees that he is solely responsible for all tax obligations, including, but not limited to, all payment obligations which may arise as a consequence of this Agreement. Isaacs further agrees promptly to pay and to indemnify and hold USC and others released herein harmless from and against any and all loss, cost, damage or expense, including, without limita-tion, attorneys fees, interest, assessments, withhold-ing and penalties, arising out of any dispute over underwithholding or other tax treatment of any of the proceeds received by Isaacs as a result of this Agree-ment. Isaacs further agrees not to seek or make any

App. 29

claim against USC or others released herein for any loss, cost, damage or expense if a claim or adverse determination is made in connection with underwithholding or other tax treatment of any of the proceeds of this Agreement or any portion thereof. Isaacs understands and agrees that neither USC nor others released herein has any duty to defend against any claim or assertion in connection with underwithholding or other tax treatment of the proceeds of this settlement or any portion thereof, and Isaacs agrees to assume full responsibility for defending against any such claim or assertion.

6. No Other or Future Lawsuits, Charges,

Claims for Arbitration or Complaints of Any Nature Whatsoever.

With the exception of United States District Court Case No. CV-06-3338 GAF (Ex), which is fully and finally settled herein, Isaacs represents that he has not filed any other lawsuits, charges, claims for arbitration, complaints, or appeals of any kind with any court or administrative or governmental agency against USC or any other persons or entities released herein, and he agrees that he will not file any law-suits, charges, claims for arbitration, complaints, or appeals at any time hereafter based on, referring to, or incorporating any events, acts or omissions through and including the date hereof.

If Isaacss representations in this paragraph prove to be false, or if he violates the promises made

App. 30

in this paragraph and files a lawsuit, charge, claim for arbitration, complaint, or appeal of any kind with any court or administrative or governmental agency against USC or any other persons or entities released herein, based on any events, acts or omissions through and including the date hereof, Isaacs will pay for all costs and losses, including actual attorneys fees, incurred by USC in connection with said law-suit, charge, complaint, or appeal.

7. Complete Release by Isaacs.

As a material inducement to USC to enter into this Agreement, Isaacs hereby irrevocably and un-conditionally waives and releases all rights and claims, known and unknown, which he may have against USC, the Keck School of Medicine, and each of their respective successors, assigns, agents, trus-tees, officers, administrators, faculty, students, current and former employees, representatives, attorneys, divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates (and agents, trustees, officers, administrators, faculty, current and former employees, representatives and attorneys of such divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates), and Robert Baughman and each of his family members, and all persons acting by, through, under or in concert with any of them (collectively, the Releasees) from the beginning of time to the date Isaacs signs this Agreement from any and all claims, demands, con-tracts, expenses, liens, covenants, debts, attorneys fees, causes of action, damages, judgments, orders, and liabilities (collectively Claims) of whatever kind

App. 31

or nature in law, equity, or otherwise, whether now known or unknown, suspected, or unsuspected, and whether or not concealed or hidden, which Isaacs now owns or holds or had at any time heretofore owned or held against the Releasees.

8. Release by USC

As a material inducement to Isaacs to enter into this Agreement, USC does hereby irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and forever discharge Isaacs from any and all charges, complaints, claims, liabilities, obligations, promises, agreements, contro-versies, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, rights, demands, grievances, costs, losses, and ex-penses (including attorneys fees and costs) of any nature whatsoever, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, fixed or contingent, including but not limited to any claim for malicious institution of civil proceedings, and abuse of process. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, this release by the Uni-versity is not intended to, and does not, release debts unrelated to the lawsuit, including but not limited to tuition or loans.

9. Knowing and Voluntary Waiver of

Known and Unknown Claims

Consistent with the terms of their respective releases in paragraphs 7 and 8, Isaacs and USC acknowledge and agree that, as a condition of this Agreement, they expressly release all rights and

App. 32

claims that they do not know about, as well as those they know about. Thus, consistent with the terms of their respective releases, Isaacs and USC expressly waive all rights under Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California, which reads as follows:

A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of exe-cuting the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.

10. Ownership of Claims

Isaacs represents and agrees that he has not assigned or transferred, or attempted to assign or transfer, to any person or entity, any of the claims he is releasing in this Agreement.

11. Encouragement to Consult With Attor-

ney

USC encourages Isaacs to consult with an attor-ney before signing this Agreement, and Isaacs hereby acknowledges that he has had the opportunity to consult with an attorney prior to signing, and has either done so or voluntarily chosen not to do wo.

12. No Representations

The parties represent and agree that no promis-es, statements or inducements have been made to

App. 33

them which caused them to sign this Agreement other than those expressly stated in this Agreement.

13. Successors

This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and upon their respective heirs, administrators, representatives, executors, successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and others released herein, their representatives, execu-tors, successors and assigns.

14. Confidentiality of This Agreement

a. As a material inducement for USC to enter into this Agreement, Isaacs agrees not to disclose the negotiation, terms, conditions, or amount of this Agreement to anyone other than Isaacss attorneys and tax adviser (hereafter referred to as Isaacss Confidants) and, even as to such a person, only if the person agrees to honor this confidentiality require-ment. Violation of this confidentiality requirement by any of Isaacss Confidants will be treated as a viola-tion of this Agreement by Isaacs.

b. This section does not prohibit Isaacss disclo-sure of the negotiation, terms, conditions, or amount of this Agreement to the extent necessary legally to enforce this Agreement, nor does it prohibit disclo-sures to the extent otherwise required by law (but only if Isaacs notifies USC and its attorneys of a disclosure obligation or request within three business

App. 34

days after he learns of it and does not actively oppose USCs taking all steps it deems to be appropriate to prevent or limit the required disclosure).

c. If Isaacs is asked about his claims against USC, including breach of enrollment contract and wrongful dismissal, and only if asked, he may state only that the matter has been resolved. However, the parties further agree that Isaacs is not required to disclose this matter to anyone.

15. Damages for Isaacss Breach of Confi-

dentiality

A breach of paragraph 14 will be deemed a mate-rial breach of this entire Agreement. Isaacs agrees to pay USC the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) as liquidated damages for each violation in the event USC obtains a judgment, ruling, award, or decision that paragraph 14 has been violated. The parties to this Agreement agree that this liquidated damages provision is appropriate with regard to any breach of paragraph 14 because: (1) paragraph 14 is essential for the protection of USCs interests; (2) damages for breach of paragraph 14 would be difficult to prove with certainty; and (3) the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) per breach represents a reasonable estimate of the harm likely to result from each such breach.

App. 35

16. Newly Discovered Facts

Isaacs acknowledges that he might hereafter discover facts different from or in addition to those he now knows or believes to be true with respect to a claim or claims released herein, and he expressly agrees to assume the risk of possible discovery of additional or different facts, and agrees that this Agreement shall be and remain effective in all re-spects regardless of such additional or different discovered facts.

17. Voluntary Participation in This Agree-

ment

The parties acknowledge that they have thor-oughly discussed all aspects of their rights and this Agreement with their respective attorneys, or have knowingly and voluntary chosen not to do so, and that they have carefully read and fully understand all of the provisions of this Agreement, that they have been given a reasonable period of time to consider signing this Agreement, and that they are voluntarily signing this Agreement.

18. Governing Law

This Agreement is made and entered into in the State of California and shall in all respects be inter-preted, enforced and governed under the laws of said State.

App. 36

19. Further Necessary Actions

The parties agree, without further consideration, to sign and/or cause to be signed, and to deliver to counsel for one another, any other documents and to take any other action as may be necessary to fulfill their obligations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, effecting the dismissal of all outstand-ing administrative charges.

20. Severability

Should any of the provisions in this Agreement, other than the Release set forth in Paragraph 7, be declared or be determined to be illegal or invalid, all remaining parts, terms or provisions shall be valid, and the illegal or invalid part, term or provision shall be deemed not to be a part of this Agreement.

21. Proper Construction

a. The language of all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be construed as a whole according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any of the parties.

b. As used in this Agreement, the term or shall be deemed to include the term and/or and the singular or plural number shall be deemed to include the other whenever the context so indicates or re-quires.

c. The paragraph headings used in this Agree-ment are intended solely for convenience of reference

App. 37

and shall not in any manner amplify, limit, modify or otherwise be used in the interpretation of any of the provisions hereof.

22. Entire Agreement

This Agreement is the entire agreement between Isaacs and USC and fully supersedes any and all prior agreements or understandings between the parties pertaining to its subject matter.

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. THIS CONFI-DENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE INCLUDES A RELEASE OF ALL KNOWN AND UNKNOWN CLAIMS.

Executed at Saint-Jean, FRANCE this 31st day of March 2008.

By: Jeffrey D Isaacs Jeffrey Isaacs Executed at Los Angeles, California, this APR 04 2008.

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

By: /s/ Dennis F Dougherty Dennis F. Dougherty

Senior Vice President for Finance

31157 Isaacs cv 0231157 Isaacs in 0331157 Isaacs br 0431157 Isaacs aa 0231157 Isaacs ab 01