Dall. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Woody

Decision Date15 April 2016
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-1961-G
Parties Dallas Independent School District, Plaintiff, v. Michelle Woody, as next friend to K.W., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

Sarah Stryker Flournoy, West & Associates LLP, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.

Roy Atwood, Atwood Gameros LLP, Dallas, TX, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

A. JOE FISH

, Senior United States District Judge
I. INTRODUCTION

This action was brought by the plaintiff, Dallas Independent School District (DISD), against the defendant, Michelle Woody (Woody), as next friend to K.W. (“Kelsey”),1 appealing the decision of the Texas Education Agency hearing officer in the administrative case labeled No. 052–SE–1014.2 Following a bench trial on January 11, 2016, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Throughout the 2013-2014 school year, Kelsey was a resident of DISD, a political subdivision of the State of Texas and a duly incorporated school district. Trial Transcript 26:21-25, 116:12-14.

2. Kelsey graduated from high school on May 29, 2014, receiving her diploma from the Winston School, a private school located within the geographical boundaries of DISD. JX 20 at 000553.

3. In May 2012, Kelsey was first identified by the Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”) as eligible for special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq.

(“IDEA”). At that time, LAUSD designated Kelsey as IDEA eligible, based on the Specific Learning Disability category, with severe discrepancies in the areas of math reasoning and reading comprehension. JX 2 at 000296.

4. For the 2013-2014 school year, DISD was Kelsey's resident district under the IDEA. Trial Transcript 26:21-25, 116:12-14.

5. Kelsey first presented with academic difficulties in preschool. JX 23 at 000559. At that time, she was diagnosed with ADHD and as being at risk for developing a language disorder and a dyslexic learning style. Id. at 000561.

6. Throughout Kelsey's elementary school years, she attended private schools that served students with disabilities where she received support for academics, social interactions, and ADHD. Id. at 000560-61. The evaluation data indicate continued concerns related to ADHD, reading, and oral and written expression. Id.

7. When Kelsey was eight years of age, her father died of colon cancer

. Due Process Hearing Transcript (“Due Process T.”) 39:13-15; Trial Transcript 11:1-4. The family ultimately moved to Dallas, where Kelsey began sixth grade at a Dallas private school. Due Process T. 41:25-42:6. After sixth grade, Kelsey transferred to a Dallas private school, the Hockaday School (“Hockaday”), where she remained for seventh through ninth grades. Id. at 42:7-13, 50:2-50:23. Hockaday is a private college preparatory school that does not specifically serve students with disabilities. Id. at 49:11-50:21.

8. While at Hockaday, Kelsey exhibited substantial deficiencies in her academic profile, leading the Hockaday headmaster to refer Kelsey for assessment. Id. at 42:14-17. As a result, in January 2010, the Shelton Center formally evaluated Kelsey during her eighth grade year. Id. at 43:4-49:9; Woody's Exhibit (“WX”) 1 at 000577-88. The Shelton Center evaluation found that Kelsey exhibited clear evidence of learning differences that required remediation and accommodations. WX 1 at 000584-85. Specifically, the evaluation found that Kelsey had a nonverbal learning disorder, not otherwise specified, and dysgraphia

. Id. at 000585.

9. Following the Shelton Center evaluation, Hockaday referred Kelsey to the Winston School, a private school serving students with disabilities, but Kelsey declined to attend the Winston School. Due Process T. 49:11-50:23. Kelsey completed her ninth grade year at Hockaday despite the indications that Hockaday could not properly educate her. Id.

10. Following her ninth grade year, Kelsey moved to Los Angeles so that her mother, Woody, could complete an advanced degree at USC. Trial Transcript 13:8-11. For the fall semester of her tenth grade year (fall 2011), Kelsey attended the Brentwood Academy, a private college preparatory school in Los Angeles that does not provide services to students with disabilities. Trial Transcript 13:11-14; Due Process T. 51:10-52:17. Kelsey was wholly unsuccessful at Brentwood, both academically and socially. Trial Transcript 13:11-14; Due Process T. 52:18-53:8.

11. As a result of Kelsey's lack of success at Brentwood, Woody enrolled her in a LAUSD public school, University High School (“University”), for the spring semester of her tenth grade year. Trial Transcript 13:15-21; Due Process T. 53:15-18. Woody informed University about the Shelton Center evaluation and Kelsey's educational history. Due Process T. 53:24-54:2. In April 2012, LAUSD completed a comprehensive psychoeducational evaluation for Kelsey to determine if she was eligible to receive services under the IDEA categories of Learning Disability and/or Other Health Impairment for ADHD. JX 1 at 000260.

12. LAUSD's comprehensive evaluation of Kelsey found a discrepancy between her ability and achievement in the area of reading comprehension, with deficits also noted in math. Id. at 000272-74. The evaluation also found that Kelsey had ongoing attention problems, but concluded that her motivation and hard work prevented those problems from impacting her educational performance. Id. The evaluation recommended that Kelsey be referred to an Individual Education Program (“IEP”) team to determine eligibility and program placement options, as well as continued implementation of her 504 plan and private counseling outside of school to manage anxiety and other emotional issues revealed by the assessment. Id.

13. The LAUSD conducted an Admission, Review, and Dismissal Committee (“ARDC”) meeting on May 18, 2012 and concluded that Kelsey was eligible for services under IDEA based on the category of Specific Learning Disability. JX 2 at 000296. Woody concurred, but also believed that Kelsey's past designation of dysgraphia should be included and requested independent testing for dysgraphia, which was never completed. Id. at 000292. The ARDC developed an IEP for implementation with goals and objectives to address reading, math, and vocational education, and included instructional accommodations. Id. at 000286-91. The IEP designated general education as the instructional setting for Kelsey. Id. at 000294.

14. The May 2012 IEP was implemented for the remainder of Kelsey's tenth grade year (approximately one month) and Kelsey completed tenth grade with greater success. Trial Transcript 15:22-16:3; Due Process T. 62:24-63:3. Woody requested, and University agreed, that Kelsey take honors classes in her eleventh grade year. Due Process T. 63:2-7.

15. During the summer following tenth grade (2012), Kelsey traveled to South Korea to spend time with her older sister, who lived there. Trial Transcript 16:24-17:1. During her weeks in South Korea, Kelsey experienced significant emotional deterioration. Id. at 17:2-6. Kelsey had episodes of screaming and crying, having sensations that her body was burning when there was nothing physically wrong, running away, rocking, and being out of touch with reality. Id. Kelsey's sister sought medical attention for her while she was in South Korea and obtained mood-stabilizing medication for her. Id. at 17:7-11; Due Process T. 64:4-65:14.

16. Kelsey returned to Los Angeles and continued to demonstrate dramatic symptoms of an emotional breakdown despite mood stabilization medication, auditory hallucinations of command

type, inability to participate in linear conversation, frequent bizarre responses, and elopement. Due Process T. 66:2-19; WX 3 at 000593-95. Kelsey was admitted to the adolescent unit of UCLA Psychiatric Hospital (“UCLA”) on August 13, 2012. WX 2 at 000589. Kelsey's admitting diagnosis was “Psychosis not otherwise specified. Rule out schizophrenia, disorganized type.” Id. at 000592.

17. On August 22, 2012, Kelsey's attending psychiatrists at UCLA drafted a progress note concerning her condition and its implications for her upcoming eleventh grade year, the 2012-2013 school year. WX 3 at 000593-95. In relevant part, the report confirmed that Kelsey met diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia

in addition to her previously diagnosed learning disabilities and attention problems. Id. at 000594. Due to the level of her functional impairment, the doctors stated that Kelsey required an increase in special education services in order to access the curriculum. Id. Specifically, they recommended that her school program include a “small, self-contained, specialized setting throughout her day where she can work within an adjusted curriculum and receive instructional supports and modifications in all subjects as well as therapeutic supports and close monitoring.” Id. at 000594. In addition, they recommended counseling as a related service. Id. at 000595. Finally, the recommendation stated that Kelsey may only be able to access her education in an instructional setting of a small self-contained campus (a non-public school setting) due to the severity of her psychotic disorder. Id.

18. On August 30, 2012, UCLA Inpatient Hospital discharged Kelsey to her home and a partial hospitalization program that included day treatment and educational services in a highly structured, supervised, therapeutic milieu. WX 4 at 000596-601. Kelsey remained in the partial hospitalization program until her discharge on October 23, 2012. WX 6 at 000604-06.

19. On September 12, 2012, the UCLA psychiatrists treating Kelsey issued an update and addendum to their recommendations for her educational programming made on August 22, 2012. WX 5 at 000602-03. The addendum reported that Kelsey continued to be fragile and disorganized, easily overwhelmed by external stimuli, and impaired in her judgment. Id. at 000602. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Dall. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Woody
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 27 Julio 2017
    ...$11,942.50 because it found that Woody's "conduct contributed in part to the imbroglio before the court." See Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Woody, 178 F.Supp.3d 443 (N.D. Tex. 2016). The District now appeals. Woody does not cross-appeal.DISCUSSIONI. Overview of theex rel. Diane C. v. State of......
  • Krawietz v. Galveston Indep. Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 30 Marzo 2017
    ...requested a Due Process Hearing. The Court further finds that this six-month delay was unreasonable. See Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Woody, 178 F. Supp. 3d 443, 468 (N.D. Tex. 2016) (collecting cases). This is especially true given the extensive notice given to GISD and the dire circumstanc......
  • Through Her Next Friend, Tracey K. v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • 29 Junio 2017
    ...plaintiff had a disability was "sufficient to satisfy [the school district's] Child Find obligations."); Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Woody, 178 F. Supp. 3d 443, 468 (N.D. Tex. 2016) (holding that a school district did not violate its Child Find obligations because it evaluated Plaintiff wit......
  • Dall. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Woody
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • 30 Noviembre 2018
    ...FAPE for K.W., DISD was only liable for one half of K.W.'s Winston School tuition. See Dallas Independent School District v. Michelle Woody, 178 F. Supp. 3d 443, 475 (N.D. Tex. 2016) (Fish, Senior J.) (docket entry 55). DISD again appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit uph......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT