Recent developments--learning disabilities

Journal of Law and Education, Oct 2000

Parent sued school district for relief pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The child had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and learning disabilities, which allowed him protections under IDEA. He had received occupational therapy since he was in pre-school and continued to receive therapy. He was receiving two hours of occupational therapy per week, one hour involving hippotherapy (horseback riding). The school district reduced his occupational therapy to one hour per week. The parent objected and sued. Held: For school district. Discontinuation of particular type of occupational therapy did not violate "stay-put" provisions of the IDEA or state regulation. Award of compensatory education is not an appropriate remedy for failure to provide an individualized placement determination, where school district provided student with a free, appropriate public education. Erickson v. Albuquerque Public Sch. 199 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 1999).

Disabled student sued school, alleging school was responsible for her injuries. A disabled student confined to a wheelchair was transported by public school bus to her elementary school. Upon arriving at the school, the bus driver assisted the student in disembarking. In the process, he failed to properly secure the student in the wheelchair and caused injury to her hand. Held: For the student. The bus driver was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Thus, the school was liable for any injuries he inflicted upon the student. Groves v. Dayton Public Schools, 725 N.E.2d 734 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999).

School districts sued state seeking reimbursement of costs for students' educational placements. One school district paid the expenses for a student's placement at a private school. Another school district reimbursed a student's parents for costs of home education. Both school districts sought contribution from the state. Held: For the state. If a school district receives money appropriated by the federal government for a student's educational placement costs, the school district must provide services out of its share of the federal appropriation. The school district cannot obtain additional funds from the state by way of contribution. Bd. of Educ. v. Kelly E., 207 F.3d 931 (7th Cir. 2000).

Parents of disabled student sued school seeking student's continued placement at private school. The student attended a private school during his eighth-grade year, after which the school district proposed that the student be returned to the public school system. The parents disagreed with the proposed placement and sought to continue the student's placement at the private school until the dispute was resolved. Held: For the school. Because the parents and the school had previously agreed that the student's placement at the private school was temporary, the parents were not entitled to the student's continued placement pending resolution of the dispute. Verhoeven v. Brunswick Sch. Comm., 207 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999).

Parents of autistic student sued school over alleged violation of Individual's with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Under the student's Individualized Education Plan the school proposed to mainstream the student in a regular kindergarten class with one-on-one assistance from a trained para-professional. Held: For the school. The plan proposed by the school took into account the student's unique needs and was designed to allow the student to achieve his maximum potential; therefore, there was no violation of the IDEA. Burilovich v. Bd. of Educ., 208 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2000).

Parents of mentally handicapped student sued school district over location of educational services provided as part of student's Individualized Education Plan. The student's parents sought to have the educational services provided at a private school rather than at the school district's public high school. Held: For the school district. It was within the parents' constitutionally protected right to send the student to a private school, but the public school district was not required to subsidize the parents' exercise of that right. Russman v. Bd. of Educ. Of the City of Watervilet, 92 F. Supp. 2d 95 (N.D. NY 2000).

Parents of mentally handicapped student sued school alleging negligent supervision of student by school's employee. The student was injured when she fell from a piece of playground equipment. The school was aware that the student required close supervision while on the playground. Held: For the school. The parents failed to show that the school's employee had been negligent in providing sufficient supervision of the student. Morgan v. Great Falls Sch. Dist. No. 1, 995 P.2d 422 (Mont. 2000).

Parents appealed decision that student was not entitled to compensatory education. Parents of preschool handicapped student claimed that the school board's proposed placement in hybrid preschool class failed to provide student with a meaningful education in the least restrictive environment. Held: For the school in part and the parents in part. The educational plan instituted for the child provided him with a meaningful education. However, the court determined the school failed to adequately investigate the potential for alternative placements to meet the requirements for a least restrictive learning environment. T.R. v. Kingswood Township Bd. of Educ., 205 F.3d 572, (3d Cir. 2000).