Scorah v. District of Columbia, CIV.A.03-160 GK.
| Decision Date | 11 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A.03-160 GK.,CIV.A.03-160 GK. |
| Citation | 322 F.Supp.2d 12 |
| Parties | John SCORAH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Donna Lee Wulkan, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Urenthea McQuinn, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
Plaintiffs, Joseph Scorah, a seventeen-year-old student with emotional disturbances and learning disabilities, and his parents, John and Cecilia Scorah ("the Scorahs"), bring this action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq., against Defendants, the District of Columbia ("District") and Paul L. Vance, Superintendent, District of Columbia Public Schools ("DCPS")1. The Scorahs challenge a hearing officer's administrative determination that the DCPS met its legal obligations to their child under the IDEA.
This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Upon consideration of the Motions, Oppositions, and the entire record herein, and for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
IDEA guarantees "all children with disabilities" "a free appropriate public education ["FAPE"] that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for employment and independent living." 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). "Implicit" in the IDEA's guarantee of a free appropriate education "is the requirement that the education to which access is provided be sufficient to confer some educational benefit upon the handicapped child." Bd. of Educ. Hendrick Hudson Central Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 200, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982).
As a condition of receiving funds under the Act, IDEA requires school districts to adopt procedures to ensure appropriate educational placement of disabled students. See 20 U.S.C. § 1413. In addition, school districts must develop comprehensive plans for meeting the special educational needs of disabled students. See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(2)(A). These plans are known as "individualized education programs," or IEPs, and must include "a statement of the child's present levels of educational performance, ... a statement of measurable annual goals, [and] a statement of the special education and related services ... to be provided to the child...." 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A).
IDEA also guarantees parents of disabled children an opportunity to participate in the identification, evaluation, and placement process. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(f), 1415(b)(1). Parents who object to their child's "identification, evaluation, or educational placement" are entitled to an "impartial due process hearing," 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(b)(6), (f)(1), at which they have a "right to be accompanied and advised by counsel." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(h)(1). During the due process hearing, "DCPS shall bear the burden of proof, based solely upon the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, that the action or proposed placement is adequate to meet the educational needs of the student." 5 D.C. Mun. Regs. § 3022.16.
Parents "aggrieved by" a hearing officer's findings and decision may bring a civil action in either state or federal court without regard to the amount in controversy. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2).
Joseph is an emotionally disturbed and learning disabled seventeen-year-old child. In October 1998, Joseph was evaluated for "distractibility and inattention" and began to receive weekly speech and language therapy sessions to address his difficulty expressing himself verbally. Pl.'s Mot., at 3.
In September 2001, Joseph began the ninth grade at St. John's College High School in Washington D.C.. There Joseph developed an "extreme anxiety" about attending school; "he became depressed, stopped doing his homework, and began to refuse to go to school." Id. When Joseph refused to go back to school after Thanksgiving 2001, his parents took him to a psychiatrist who prescribed antidepressant medication which "elevated his moods, and increased his tendency to defy any limits his parents set for him." Id.
In December 2001, Joseph "reached his lowest point and became uncontrollable." Id. On December 26, 2001, after attempting to stab his brother, he was admitted to Dominion Hospital's Psychiatric Ward where he stayed until January 3, 2002. Upon his release from the Hospital, his parents enrolled him at the Foundation School in Rockville, Maryland, a psychotherapeutic day school. After only three days, Joseph refused to go back. His parents then tried to enroll him at Deal Junior High School, but he refused to go.
On February 20, 2002, Dr. Frank Lane, a clinical psychologist, evaluated and diagnosed Joseph with "moderate depression and occasional irritable exchanges with [his] parents when limits were set on his behavior." Id., at 4. On March 6, 2002, upon Dr. Lane's recommendation, Joseph's parents enrolled him at Alldredge Academy, a residential wilderness program in West Virginia for students with emotional difficulties. According to the Scorahs, Joseph was able to complete his three-month placement at Alldredge only because of the "added support of a definite structure, positive feedback, and connection to his setting." Id.
On June 19, 2002, the Scorahs enrolled Joseph at the Lab School of Washington ("Lab") for the summer session. When Joseph refused to go to school, Dr. Meltzer, a high school coordinator at Lab, took a personal interest in his situation. Dr. Meltzer worked with Joseph on an individual basis for more than two weeks and eventually encouraged Joseph to move into a group setting to finish the summer session. With Dr. Meltzer's help, Joseph successfully finished the summer session and was accepted to continue at Lab for the 2002-2003 school year.
In September 2002, Joseph again encountered difficulties and refused to go to school. In order to get Joseph to return, Lab developed an individualized program that responded to his emotional and educational needs.3 This program included an athletic internship, individual speech and language therapy sessions, psychotherapy, thirty-five hours per week of special education, two forty-five minute psychology sessions per week, supportive teacher counseling, and consultations with academic staff, parents, speech and language pathologists, and high school counselors. See Compl., at ¶¶ 24, 25. According to the Scorahs, "[o]nly upon the consistent encouragement and flexible curriculum of the Lab School has Jo[seph] been able to harness his depression, address his learning disabilities, and attend school on a regular basis." Pl.'s Mot., at 6.
In March 2002, the Scorahs submitted to DCPS a Teacher Assistance Team ("TAT") form, which gave DCPS 120 days to (1) assess Joseph; (2) complete an IEP for him; and (2) identify a school placement. Id., at 7.
On June 20, 2002, DCPS developed an IEP for Joseph. While the IEP provided for extended school year ("ESY") education, it did not identify an ESY placement for either the Summer of 2002 or the 2002-2003 school year.
On July 3, 2002, the Scorahs requested a due process hearing pursuant to the terms of the IDEA based on DCPS' failure to identify an ESY placement.4
The due process hearing took place on September 13, 2002. In a decision dated September 16, 2002, the Hearing Officer ordered DCPS to place and fund Joseph at Lab from September 2002 until such time that DCPS "offer[ed] him an appropriate special education placement." In the Matter of Joseph Scorah, September 16, 2002 Hearing Officer Decision, Defs. Ex. 5, at 4. The Hearing Officer also ordered DCPS to (1) reimburse the Scorahs for Joseph's ESY education at Lab during the Summer of 2002; (2) convene a Multi-Disciplinary Team ("MDT")/IEP meeting; (3) finalize Joseph's IEP; and (3) identify an ESY placement on or before October 10, 2002. Id. In addition, the Hearing Officer ordered the Scorahs to submit any independent evaluation reports they wanted considered at the MDT/IEP meeting. Id.
On September 17, 2002, Lab administered an extensive speech and language evaluation which diagnosed Joseph with "Mixed Receptive-Expressive Language Disorder" and recommended that he receive individual speech and language therapy. See Pl.'s Mot., Ex. P-22. The Scorahs submitted this independent evaluation report so that it might be considered at the MDT/IEP meeting.
On October 2, 2002, DCPS convened a MDT/IEP meeting and finalized an IEP for Joseph which placed him at Woodrow Wilson Senior High School ("Wilson"). The IEP also included the speech and language therapy goals recommended in the September 17, 2002 evaluation. Specifically, the IEP provides for 21 hours per week of specialized instruction, 1.5 hours per week of speech and language therapy, and 2 hours of counseling. See id., Ex. P-23.
On October 16, 2002, the Scorahs requested a second due process hearing pursuant to the terms of the IDEA challenging the appropriateness of Joseph's IEP and his placement at Wilson. On December 2, 2002, the Scorahs amended their request to include reimbursement for the September 17, 2002 evaluation that was relied on by DCPS in finalizing Joseph's IEP. See id., Ex. P-29.
The due process hearing took place on December 16, 2002. Mr. Alonzo Randall, Coordinator of Special Education at Wilson, was the only individual to testify on behalf of DCPS.5 Mr. Randall, who had never met Joseph or reviewed any of the evaluations on Joseph, specifically testified that he was unable to speak personally to Joseph's particular educational or emotional needs and that he did not know whether the goals and objectives provided for in Joseph's IEP were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.G. v. District of Columbia
...of disabled children have the right to participate in the identification, evaluation, and placement process. Scorah v. District of Columbia, 322 F.Supp.2d 12, 14 (D.D.C.2004) (citing 20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(f), 1415(b)(1)). "Parents who object to their child's identification, evaluation or educat......
-
Integrated Design and Electronics v. McKinley, Civ. No. 06-1916(EGS).
...meeting or are afforded the opportunity to participate." 34 C.F.R. § 300.322; see N.G., 556 F.Supp.2d at 17; Scorak v. District of .Columbia, 322 F.Supp.2d 12, 14 (D.D.C.2004) (citing 20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(f), 1415(b)(1)). "Parents who object to their child's `identification, evaluation or educ......
-
Long v. Dist. of D.C., Civil Action No. 09–2130 (GK).
...proposed placement is adequate to meet the education needs of the student.” D.C. Mun. Reg. § 3030.3; see also Scorah v. District of Columbia, 322 F.Supp.2d 12, 14 (D.D.C.2004). Any party aggrieved by the findings or decision of a hearing officer may bring a civil action in state or federal ......
-
Moyer v. Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist.
...work towards a high school diploma"). 76. AR 1853. 77. AR 1864. 78. Reply at 5-7. 79. Brief at 8-9. Moyer cites Scorah v. District of Columbia, 322 F.Supp.2d 12, 18 (D.D.C. 2004), for the proposition that the court should view all evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff based ......