Baker v. Bentonville Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 08 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 5:20-CV-05207 |
| Citation | 610 F.Supp.3d 1157 |
| Parties | Rodney BAKER and Jayme Baker, each individually and as next friends of IB, a minor, Plaintiffs v. BENTONVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
George M. Rozzell, IV, Miller, Butler, Schneider, Pawlik, Rozzell PLLC, Fayetteville, AR, Robert Cannedy Dalby, Miller, Butler, Schneider, Pawlik, Rozzell, Rogers, AR, for Plaintiffs.
Katherine Church Campbell, Clifford W. Plunkett, Marshall S. Ney, Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Rogers, AR, for Defendant.
Before the Court is Defendant Bentonville School District's (the "District") motion (Doc. 29) for summary judgment, statement of facts (Doc. 31), and brief in support (Doc. 32).1 Plaintiffs filed a response (Doc. 34) and statement of facts (Doc. 33) in opposition, and various exhibits under seal (Doc. 33). The District filed a reply (Doc. 35). For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be GRANTED.
Plaintiffs Rodney Baker and Jayme Baker bring this action on behalf of their minor child IB, hereinafter referred to as "Student." Student was born in 2012 and suffered vision problems from an early age. From October 2015 to November 2019, Dr. Brita Rook, Dr. William Yoos, and Dr. Paul Henry treated Student's vision. Dr. Rook, a pediatric ophthalmologist at Arkansas Children's Hospital ("ACH") saw Student from October 2015 to June 2017. By October 2015, Student was diagnosed with bilateral hyperopia and accommodative esotropia. Bilateral hyperopia caused farsightedness in both eyes. Student's vision was the poorest in her left eye. Accommodative esotropia caused Student's eyes to "cross inward toward the nose because of the farsightedness in her eyes." (Doc. 31, p. 2, ¶ 6). Student was also diagnosed with amblyopia which meant both of her eyes did not look at the same place, at the same time. Student had corrective lenses for both near and far sightedness which helped reduce the eye crossing. Dr. Rook believed Student's eye conditions would improve with treatment, including patching2 and corrective lenses, however, this was not certain.
Student had at least twelve visual acuity tests from May 6, 2015 to September 24, 2018. These tests determined the visual acuity in Student's left and right eyes.
Normal vision is typically a visual acuity "stronger than 20/70 in the better-seeing eye with correction." (Doc. 31, p. 2, ¶ 12). A person is considered legally blind with visual acuity of "20/200 or less in the better-seeing eye with correction." Id. A person with visual acuity of 20/40, 20/50, and 20/70 is typically able to read and "visual acuity of 20/50 or stronger in the better seeing eye with correction is considered good enough to drive." Id. at p. 3, ¶¶ 12-13. Because children's cooperation during visual acuity tests varies, providers often look at multiple exams over a period of time to accurately determine a child's visual acuity. Throughout Student's twelve visual acuity tests, Student's visual acuity in her left eye ranged from a 20/30 to a 20/200, and the visual acuity in her right eye ranged from a 20/40 to a 20/70.
On April 25, 2017, Dr. Rook performed a strabismus operation on Student and Ms. Baker indicated that Student's visual acuity appeared better after the surgery. On June 16, 2017, the District received an Educational Services for the Visually Impaired ("ESVI") form from ACH which listed Student's visual acuity as 20/50 in the right eye and 20/150 in her left eye with correction. The ESVI form also reflected Student as having normal vision and stated Student "may benefit from a 504 plan." (Doc. 30-17, p. 16). Student had an eye exam on September 22, 2017, and had visual acuity of 20/70 in her right eye, 20/200 in her left eye, and 20/70 using both eyes. The September 22 visual acuity exam results were the worst results Student had from 2015 to 2018. On January 31, 2018, Student's visual acuity results were 20/50 visual acuity in her right eye and a 20/70 visual acuity in her left eye. At no point did Student's visual acuity drop to 20/200 or less in the better-seeing eye with correction, and no medical professional diagnosed Student as legally blind.
Student was an enrolled student in the District, and her kindergarten year at Cooper Elementary School started on August 15, 2017. Prior to the start of school, in August 2017, Ms. Baker contacted Cooper Elementary to discuss a 504 plan for Student. On August 9, 2017, Ms. Baker attended a 504 conference (the "August 9 conference") with Cooper Elementary Assistant Principal Rachel Manus and the school nurse. At the August 9 conference, Ms. Baker stated Student was legally blind, could not distinguish gendered bathrooms, and was very accident prone. The same day, a 504 Plan was created (the "First 504 Plan") and signed by Ms. Baker, Assistant Principal Manus, and Student's kindergarten teacher Pamela Sweeney. The First 504 Plan stated student had a diagnosis of vision impairment and listed the following accommodations: "large print, close supervision during transition /activity, [b]uddy for errands/restroom, [h]old hand of teacher on elevator or stairs, and (s)pecialized transportation." (Doc. 30-17, p. 74). Specialized transportation referred to the safety bus. Ms. Baker agreed with the First 504 Plan accommodations. Cooper Elementary's 504 coordinator met with all teachers responsible for Student, informed them of the First 504 Plan accommodations and Student's vision impairment, and provided the teachers a copy of the First 504 Plan.
The First 504 Plan was in place on Student's first day of kindergarten. Although kindergarteners typically travelled as a group during transitions to other areas of the school, "anytime [Student's class] transitioned, [Student] would be by [Ms. Sweeney's] side and she wouldn't go anywhere without [Ms. Sweeney] present." (Doc. 33-9, p. 4). Student was accompanied in the hallways, either by a staff member or a "buddy,"3 and "had a hand when going up the stairs." (Doc. 33-8, p. 18). Further, Student "had someone within close proximity to her during transitions and during activity time." (Doc. 33-10, p. 5). Principal Chad Mims defined "close proximity" as "[b]eing able to have eyes on [Student]." Id. Student's class went to the restroom in groups with Ms. Sweeney present. At recess, Student would tell Ms. Sweeney where she wanted to play and Ms. Sweeney would "keep her eyes on [Student]." (Doc. 33-9, pp. 4-5). Because Student liked to play in multiple areas during recess, Ms. Sweeney created "a vicinity where [Student] could play and [Ms. Sweeney] could keep [her] eyes on [Student]." Id. Ms. Sweeney shared Student's safety strategy with other kindergarten teachers, and the District instructed all kindergarteners on safe play at recess.
In September 2017, the District's vision consultants, Tamara McNabb and Misty Cates, performed a Functional Vision Assessment ("FVA") for Student. The FVA included a review of Student's medical records, eye reports, and school records. The vision consultants also discussed the eye reports with Student's medical providers and discussed Student's vision issues with Ms. Sweeney, the physical education teacher, and Principal Mims. Student's functional visual capabilities, including depth perception and ability to navigate stairs and the playground, were evaluated through classroom and activity observations. The FVA noted Student "demonstrated no concerns with depth perception and [ ] did not limit herself on the playground equipment." Id. at 5. Also, Student "demonstrated no trouble remembering routes at school[,] ... exhibited no problems with curbs, stairs and other drop-offs[,] ... [and] was observed walking efficiently around the classroom, library, cafeteria, school hallways and stairs." Id. The FVA determined Student qualified as a student with low vision and Student was added to the ESVI caseload to receive vision services from Ms. Cates for sixty minutes per week. Id. at 6. The FVA also recommended Student sit within five to six feet of the board, receive 18-point font size materials, practice self-advocacy, utilize organizational skills, and use safety precautions when in physical education class ("PE") or unfamiliar areas.
On October 27, 2017, Ms. Baker met with school officials and Student's 504 plan was updated (the "Second 504 Plan"). The Second 504 Plan enacted the following accommodations: (1) preferential seating (5-6 feet from instruction); (2) encouragement of Student's self-advocacy; (3) keeping desk/workspace organized and clutter free; (4) 18 pt font on materials provided to Student; (5) safety precautions for unfamiliar areas and in PE class; (6) access to a magnifier for library books; and (7) vision services for sixty minutes per week. The Second 504 Plan also removed the specialized transportation accommodation because of Student's visual acuity reports and the FVA results. Ms. Baker signed the Second 504 Plan. During the first three months of school, the District had multiple meetings and communications with Student's parents regarding Student's accommodations.
From August 15, 2017, to October 30, 2017, Student was injured six times at school. On August 15, Student's finger was stuck in the door of a restroom. Ms. Baker took Student to the emergency room. Medical records reflect Student's finger was not broken and the injury was treated with an ice pack, antibiotic ointment, and a bandage. On August 17, Student's bottom lip was busted by another student. Ms. Baker did not seek medical treatment for Student's busted lip. On August 25, Student was injured4 when another student ran up the slide while Student was using the slide. No medical treatment was sought. On September 7, Student was injured on the playground when she received a splinter. The school nurse removed the splinter and no further medical treatment was sought. On October 24,...
To continue reading
Request your trial