Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist. v. T.D.
| Decision Date | 08 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:15-CV-764 |
| Citation | 597 F.Supp.3d 709 |
| Parties | POCONO MOUNTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, v. T.D., BY AND THROUGH his parent, S.D.L., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Glenna M. Hazeltine, John E. Freund, III, King, Spry, Herman, Freund & Faul LLC, Bethlehem, PA, for Plaintiff.
Dennis Daniel Woody, John W. Goldsborough, Michael E. Gehring, McAndrews, Mehalik, Connolly, Hulse and Ryan P.C., Berwyn, PA, for Defendants.
On April 20, 2015, to appeal a decision issued by a Pennsylvania Special Education Hearing Officer ("Hearing Officer"), plaintiff Pocono Mountain School District, (the "Plaintiff" or the "District"), filed a complaint in this district against T.D., a minor, and S.D.L., as parent and legal guardian of T.D., (collectively, the "Defendants"). (Doc. 1). On March 14, 2018, Magistrate Judge Carlson issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the Hearing Officer's award of twenty-six hours of compensatory education and tuition reimbursement for the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years be upheld. (Doc. 74).
On July 20, 2018, this Court entered an Order adopting in part and overruling in part Judge Carlson's recommendation and establishing that though T.D. was not entitled to compensatory damages under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 20 U.S.C. § 794, ("Section 504"), he was entitled to tuition reimbursement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., ("IDEA") and compensatory education under the Rehabilitation Act. (Doc. 85). On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed an award of compensatory education under Section 504 but otherwise vacated the findings made by this Court and the Hearing Officer. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist. v. T.D. , 790 F.App'x 387, 390 (3d Cir. 2019).
In view of the Defendants’ overall successes, this Court will consider Defendants’ Motion for the Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, (Doc. 91), and Supplemental Motion for the Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, (Doc. 109), filed on behalf of their legal counsel, McAndrews Law Offices, ("MLO"). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the Defendants’ request in part and award an adjusted amount in attorneys’ fees and costs.
In and around the end of 2011, defendant T.D. was a third-grade student in the Pocono Mountain School District when an eight-year-old female student inappropriately touched T.D. on multiple occasions in sensitive areas of his body. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 1-2). In light of these incidents, T.D.’s mother notified the school of the alleged touching, after which the school immediately conducted an investigation and determined that T.D. and the female student should be separated at all times for the rest of the school year. (Id. at ¶¶ 15, 19). Following the conclusion of the school's investigation, however, T.D. apparently started to exhibit behavioral and social issues, and in May 2012, the District agreed to evaluate T.D. for special education services. (Id. at ¶¶ 22-28, 36-38). Though the evaluation report issued in July 2012 concluded that T.D. did not have a disability under IDEA, T.D. continued to exhibit behavioral and social problems at school throughout his fourth-grade year. (Id. ¶¶ 51-56); see also (Id. at ¶¶ 60, 62, 81) (T.D. was eventually diagnosed with a conversion disorder and anxiety disorder). In the summer of 2013, following the concluding of T.D.’s fourth-grade year in the Pocono Mountain School District, the District was informed that T.D. may be transferring to another school, and in the fall of 2013, in consideration of T.D.’s continued struggles, S.D.L. decided to place T.D. in private school. (Id. at ¶¶ 108-08, 113-15).
In November 2013, S.D.L. retained a private school psychologist who evaluated T.D. and concluded that T.D. "appeared to be a student who qualified for services under the IDEA as a student with an emotional disturbance and who required special education/ related services." (Doc. 1 at ¶ 122). This report was later shared with the District, which agreed to conduct yet another independent evaluation of T.D. (Id. at ¶ 127). In May 2014, the independent evaluator retained by the District concluded that T.D. did not qualify as "an eligible student under IDEA," but did have a disability–"conversion disorder and anxiety disorder/not otherwise specified"–and qualified for Section 504 accommodations. (Id. at ¶ 129). The District thereafter agreed to implement and devise a Section 504 plan for T.D., should he return to the District's schools. (Id. at ¶ 136). T.D., however, remained in private school as of the time his mother filed the special education complaint that led to administrative proceedings. (Id. at ¶ 137).
Based on documentary evidence and witness testimony presented during a seven-day administrative hearing in October and November 2014, the Pennsylvania Special Education Hearing Officer determined that: T.D. was not eligible for a free and appropriate public education, ("FAPE"), under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act because he "[did] not qualify as a student with a disability under the IDEA"; but was disabled due to his conversion disorder and anxiety disorder under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and was improperly denied FAPE under Section 504 as of May 14, 2013, which entitled him to one hour of compensatory education per school day for a period of twenty-six school days, as well as tuition reimbursement for the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years. (Doc. 10-2 at 38-49). The Hearing Officer also found that the District demonstrated deliberate indifference towards T.D. on the basis of his disability and that it thus would be unlikely that T.D. could return to the District as a student as the "relationship between the parties ha[d] been poisoned irretrievably." (Id.).
On April 20, 2015, the plaintiff District initiated this action to appeal portions of the decision issued by the Hearing Officer. (Doc. 1). The Plaintiff sought, in part, to "reverse and overturn [the Hearing Officer's] findings and award under Section 504 and its findings of discrimination." (Id. at ¶ 17). In response, T.D. and his parent filed an answer with counterclaims seeking reversal of the "modest erroneous aspects of the Hearing Officer's decision," including the failure to provide full days of compensatory education for twenty-six school days instead of one hour per day and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. (Doc. 16 at ¶ 228). The Defendants also sought "further award of compensatory damages and additional reasonable attorneys’ fees under Section 504, the Americans with Disabilities Act (‘ADA’), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq., and under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (‘Title IX’)." (Id.).
On February 16, 2016, the Court issued an Order memorializing the parties’ agreement that they would "not seek to supplement the administrative record" with motions to be decided "on the basis of the administrative record previously filed" and asserting that the counterclaims under Section 504, the ADA and Title IX would "proceed independent" of the appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision. (Doc. 35 at 1-2) (the deadline for the conclusion of discovery for the Section 504, the ADA and Title IX counterclaims was also set for "90 days of the date of this Order"). Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. (Docs. 42, 54).1 On September 25, 2017, the parties’ motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Carlson who, in view of the parties’ briefs and the record, issued an R&R recommending that the parties’ cross-motions each be granted in part and denied in part, and that the Hearing Officer's decision be affirmed in all respects. (Doc. 74). On consideration of Judge Carlson's recommendation, this Court issued an opinion on July 20, 2018, that overruled in part the Hearing Officer's decision and the R&R, finding that though the Court agreed that T.D. was entitled to twenty-six hours of compensatory education under the RA, the record supported a determination that T.D. was entitled to tuition reimbursement under the IDEA and not the RA as there was sufficient evidence to show T.D. was disabled under the IDEA but insufficient evidence to show the District was deliberately indifferent towards T.D.’s condition under the RA. (Doc. 85) (furthermore, the Court noted that the Defendants were not entitled to compensatory damages).
The District eventually appealed this Court's decision to the Third Circuit, (Doc. 89), and T.D. and his parent followed with a cross-appeal, (Doc. 93). On October 29, 2019, in consideration of the factual record and the findings by the Hearing Officer and this Court, the Third Circuit concluded that the Defendants were entitled to twenty-six hours of compensatory education. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist. , 790 F.App'x at 390. The Court also noted in its opinion, however, that during the intervening period following the Hearing Officer's decision and the filing of the Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal, Pocono Mountain School District had reimbursed the Defendants for tuition paid for private education and T.D. had reenrolled as a student in the Pocono Mountain School District. Id. Therefore, in light of these changes in circumstances, the Court vacated this Court's IDEA eligibility determination and its deliberate indifference finding as both determinations bore "only on the tuition reimbursement award." See id. ().
In September 2018, while the parties’ appeals were still before the Third Circuit, T.D. filed a Motion for the Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. (Doc. 91). In response, the District filed a Motion to Stay...
To continue reading
Request your trial