Parents v. Nazareth Area Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 26 August 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 10–4323.
• Citation: 806 F.Supp.2d 806,275 Ed. Law Rep. 748
• Parties: K.C. ex rel. HER PARENTS, Plaintiffs, v. NAZARETH AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

275 Ed. Law Rep. 748

806 F.Supp.2d 806

K.C. ex rel. HER PARENTS, Plaintiffs,

v.NAZARETH AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 10–4323.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Aug. 26, 2011.

Ilene Young, Ilene Young Law Offices, Doylestown, PA, Manali Arora, Swartz Swidler LLC, Cherry Hill, NJ, for Plaintiff.

John E. Freund, III, Kristine Roddick, King, Spry, Herman, Freund & Faul, LLC, Bethlehem, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge.

+-----------------+
                ¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦
                +-----------------+
                

                I.  INTRODUCTION                                                        811
                II. BACKGROUND                                                          812
                

    A.   Factual Background                                             812
                    B.   Procedural Background                                          812
                

                III. LEGAL STANDARDS                                                    813
                

    A.   The IDEA                                                       813
                    B.   Challenging the Provision of a FAPE                            814
                    C.   Disposition on the Administrative Record                       814
                

                IV. ANALYSIS                                                            815
                

    A.   Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record   815
                

         1.  Denial of FAPE                                             815
                

                 The Hearing Officer Did Not Abuse Her Discretion in
                             a.  Relying on the Austill Report                          815
                                 The Hearing Officer Did Not Erroneously Equate Equine
                             b.  Therapy as Equivalent to PT Services                   817
                             c.  No Denial of Necessary SOT Services                    818
                             d.  No Denial of Necessary Executive Functioning           819
                             e.  K.C.'s Transition Plan was Appropriately               822
                                 Individualized
                

                i.   Applicable Law                                     822
                                ii.  No Denial of Proper Travel Training                822
                                iii. K.C. Does Not Still Lack the Skills Necessary to   824
                                     Meet her Transition Goals
                

         2.  Delays Are Not the District's Fault                        826
                

             a.  Delay of PT and OT is Due to the District              828
                

         3.  Zealous Advocacy                                           829
                         4.  Attorneys' Fees                                            830
                

    B.   Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record   830
                

         1.  Extraneous Arguments                                       831
                

             a.  The Hearing Officer Did not Commit an Error of Law     831
                                 Any Claim for Compensatory Education for the 2006–2007
                             b.  School Year is Time Barred                             831
                                 The District is Not Legally Obligated to Act as
                             c.  Student's LEA Beyond Age 21                            831
                             d.  The District's Proposed IEP of November 2009           831
                                 Constituted a FAPE
                

         2.  Defendant is Entitled to Judgment as to Counts I, II, III, 832
                             and IV
                

                V.  CONCLUSION                                                          833
                

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs, K.C. and her Parents (collectively “Plaintiffs”), initiated this action against Nazareth Area School District (“Defendant” or “District”). Plaintiffs seek the reversal of Pennsylvania Special Education Hearing Officer Anne L. Carroll's (“Hearing Officer Carroll”) decision insofar as she denied Plaintiffs' request for full days of compensatory education from the 2007–2008 school year through the time of the filing of Plaintiffs' due process complaint. On August 25, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this Court appealing Hearing Officer Carroll's decision. Plaintiffs maintain that Defendant did not provide K.C. appropriate services thus resulting in the denial of K.C.'s right to a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. Plaintiffs request compensatory education and prevailing party fees under the IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.¹

Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record or, in the alternative, summary judgment. The Court will first discuss the relevant factual and procedural background. Next, the Court will address the relevant law and applicable standard of review. Finally, the Court will analyze Plaintiffs' and Defendant's motions for judgment on the administrative record or, in the alternative, summary judgment.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the Defendant's cross-motion, deny Plaintiffs' motion, and affirm Hearing Officer Carroll's decision.

II. BACKGROUNDA. Factual Background

K.C. is a twenty-year-old resident of the District, and she has attended the Pathway School, an approved private school, at the District's expense, since 2006. (H.O. Decision FF at ¶¶ 1, 3.) K.C. has well-documented medical problems which have adversely affected her educational progress since her early school years. K.C.'s difficulties were attributed to brain damage arising from an in-utero stroke; however, in 2006, K.C. was diagnosed with a genetic disorder, Prader–Willi Syndrome. ( Id. at ¶ 5.) This genetic disorder is believed to be the underlying cause for most, if not all, of the disabilities that adversely affect K.C.'s academic and functional skills.

B. Procedural Background

In July 2009, Plaintiffs initiated a due process hearing against the District alleging that the District violated the IDEA by denying K.C. a FAPE. Plaintiffs claim that, through the fault of the District, K.C. was denied various services that resulted in K.C.'s denial of a FAPE. In particular, the services Plaintiffs state were denied include ninety-two hours of physical therapy (“PT”), eighty-four hours of sensory occupational therapy (“SOT”), and one hundred seventeen hours of executive functioning services. Hearing Officer Carroll found that such services were not denied and K.C. was not denied a FAPE. On August 25, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a complaint attacking various aspects of Hearing Officer Carroll's decision. The following is a list of the portions of Hearing Officer Carroll's decision which Plaintiffs dispute in their complaint:

1. The Hearing Officer reached an erroneous conclusion of fact in finding that any delay in providing services to K.C. was attributable to K.C.'s Parents. (Compl. at ¶ 81(i).)

2. The Hearing Officer abused her discretion in failing to consider Parents' objection to the District's contractor-Austill. ( Id. at ¶ 81(ii).)

3. The Hearing Officer committed an error of law by implementing an equitable requirement that Parents agree to evaluations and proposed IEPs in the interest of avoiding delays. ( Id. at ¶ 81(iii).)

4. The Hearing Officer abused her discretion in attributing delays to K.C.'s Parents. ( Id. at ¶ 81(iv).)

5. The Hearing Officer committed an error of law by obligating Parents, during the pendency of due process or otherwise, to “partial agreement” with a proposed IEP that includes inappropriate services. ( Id. at ¶ 81(v).)

6. The Hearing Officer committed an error of law by failing to recognize the District's ongoing obligation to provide K.C. a FAPE which includes all related services. ( Id. at ¶ 81(vi).)

7. The Hearing Officer reached an erroneous finding of fact in finding that K.C. had been offered services for her executive functioning needs prior to April 2009. ( Id. at ¶ 81(vii).)

8. The Hearing Officer reached an erroneous conclusion of law when she found that the District's obligation to proffer programming and services reasonably designed to allow K.C. to reach her transition goals was met by nonspecific generic programs. ( Id. at ¶ 81(viii).)

9. The Hearing Officer reached an erroneous finding of fact in finding that K.C. had been offered services that addressed her PT needs because she was provided equine equilibrium therapy. ( Id. at ¶ 81(ix).)

10. The Hearing Officer abused her discretion in finding that the Parents were obligated to accept the November 2009 individualized education plan. ( Id. at ¶ 81(x).)

On October 27, 2010, the District filed a motion to dismiss which was denied. Thereafter, the District filed an answer, denying Plaintiffs' allegations and asserting numerous defenses. On February 7, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment on the administrative record or, in the alternative, summary judgment. Thereafter, on March 9, 2011, the District filed a cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record or, in the alternative, summary judgment. These motions, as well as the responses and replies to said motions, are currently before the Court.

III. LEGAL STANDARDSA. The IDEA

The purpose of the IDEA is “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). A FAPE is “an educational instruction ‘specially designed ... to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability,’ coupled with any additional ‘related services' that are ‘required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from [that instruction].’ ” Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 127 S.Ct. 1994, 167 L.Ed.2d 904 (2007) (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1401(29)); see also 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(9), (26)(A). A FAPE must be provided “under public supervision and direction, ... meet the standards of the State educational agency, ... [and] include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved.” Winkelman, 550 U.S. at 524, 127 S.Ct. 1994 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9)). It must be provided at “no cost to parents.” Id. (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1401(29)).

To...