Student v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 23 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:13cv186 |
| Parties | T.C. as next friend of STUDENT, a minor child Plaintiff v. LEWISVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
Pending before the Court are Defendant Lewisville Independent School District's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record (Dkt. 54) and Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record (Dkt. 55). As set forth below, the Court finds that Defendant's motion should be GRANTED, Plaintiff's motion should be DENIED, and Plaintiff should take nothing by her claims here.
This case arises from a special education administrative proceeding initiated by Plaintiff T.C. as next friend of her daughter, S.C., a minor child, ("Plaintiff") against the Lewisville Independent School District ("the District" or "LISD") under the IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482. The IDEA's purpose is "to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living." 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A).
S.C. was adopted by Plaintiff T.C. from an orphanage in China when she was twelve months old. A.R. 1737. When she was three, S.C. was diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder, "sensory issues," and a nine-month delay in social skills. A.R. 1744. S.C. attended school in the Bloomington, Minnesota Public Schools, where she was determined to be eligible for special education and related services as a child with an autism spectrum disorder and speech/language impairment. A.R. 917. In addition to her special education classroom placement, S.C. received speech therapy and occupational therapy while she was a student in Minnesota. A.R. 918.
S.C. moved with her family to Lewisville, Texas in November 2001. A.R. 1751. The LISD ARD committee accepted the evaluations and eligibility determinations that had previously been performed in Minnesota and determined that no new evaluations were needed at that time. A.R. 874, 899 and 913. Although LISD's new individualized educational program, or IEP, included a goal and objectives for fine motor skills, the District determined that instruction would no longer be provided by an occupational therapist, as in Minnesota, and S.C.'s speech services were also reduced. A.R. 899-915. The LISD Admissions Review and Dismissal, or ARD, committee also recommended extended school year services during the summer of 2002 to continue social skills and provide consistency in S.C.'s daily routines. A.R. 910-911. S.C. remained enrolled in LISD from 2002 until 2003 and continued to receive special education and related services. A.R. 969-971.
Then, after LISD conducted a "Full and Individual Evaluation" ("FIE") in February 2004, the District determined that S.C. no longer met the eligibility criteria under either autism or speech impairment and she was dismissed from special education and related services in February 2004. A.R. 868-897.
Although Plaintiff objected to this decision and reports that S.C. continued to have emotional and other problems (see Dkt. 55 at 7), S.C. continued in a "regular" classroom from 2004 until October 2007 when she was hospitalized and diagnosed with major depressive disorder-recurrent, psychosis, ADHD, and bipolar-rule out. A.R. 1012.
In February 2008, S.C. was privately evaluated by Michelle Lurie, Psy.D. A.R. 760. Dr. Lurie diagnosed S.C. with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, combined type and noted speech articulation problems ("w/r"), anxiety disorder, reactive attachment disorder, disorder of written expression, and sensory integration dysfunction. A.R. 760-773. Dr. Lurie found that S.C.'s "performance was within normal limits on measures of social perception" and that she did not evidence an autism spectrum disorder. A.R. 769-770. Dr. Lurie recommended that S.C. be qualified for special education services under OHI, speech impaired, and learning disabled, and that she receive instruction in a 1:1 or small group setting in a "slower-paced" classroom, with assistance with organizational and study skills. A.R. 774-775.
The District was provided with Dr. Lurie's evaluation and subsequently performed another FIE of S.C. in March 2008. A.R. 855-859, 989-1020. Before and during the District's evaluation in the spring of 2008, S.C. was hospitalized twice for psychiatric and behavioral issues. A.R. 1012.
In September 2008, at the beginning of S.C.'s fifth grade year, the District determined that S.C. was eligible for Section 504 accommodations based on Dr. Lurie's diagnoses of ADHD, anxiety disorder, RAD, and sensory integration dysfunction and developed a plan for her accordingly. A.R. 779. S.C. completed fifth and sixth grades under the supports provided in her Section 504 plan. A.R. 2272-2273.
In the fall of 2010, S.C. was hospitalized again and diagnosed with major depressive disorder, trichotillomania, and parent/child relational problems. A.R. 1303. After several changes in S.C.'s behavior were observed (including late or missing assignments and cutting herself) by District employees, in October 2010, the District conducted another Section 504 meeting to re-evaluate her Section 504 plan. A.R. 1022-1027, 2125. As a result, the Section 504 committee developed a new Behavior Intervention Plan ("BIP") and also referred S.C. for another FIE to determine whether she was eligible for special education services. Id. The District evaluated S.C. in January 2011 and prepared an FIE and IEP accordingly. A.R. 1029-1062.
After the January 2011 evaluation, although some emotional, attention and other issues were observed and recommendations were made about how to teachers should interact with S.C. and handle S.C.'s self-harming behavior, the District determined that S.C. did not demonstrate a need for specially designed instruction. A.R. 1047-1048, 2297-2298, 2300, 2316. S.C. continued under a 504 plan, but the District found that she did not qualify for special education or related services. Id. The FIE noted, however, that "[i]n the event that [S.C.'s] condition deteriorates and begins to have a significant impact on her educational, behavioral, and/or social performance in the schoolsetting, then a review of evaluation and progress by special education should again be requested." A.R. 1047.
During the summer of 2011, when school was not in session, S.C. attempted suicide and was hospitalized. A.R. 1097. According to the record, in or around August 2011, after the District received information about the suicide attempt, the District convened an ARD committee meeting to consider whether she met eligibility for special education and related services. A.R. 2164-2170. At this time, the District determined that S.C. would benefit from special education services to assist in transitioning from the hospital back to school. A.R. 1069.
On September 26, 2011, the ARD committee determined that S.C. met the eligibility requirements under the IDEA for special education and related services as a student with an emotional disturbance (ED), as well as OHI for S.C.'s ADHD, pending her doctor's approval of this eligibility. A.R. 1077, 1098, 1100.
Plaintiff declined the placement that LISD offered for her daughter, informed the ARD committee of her intent to place S.C. at a private school, Vanguard Preparatory School, upon her hospital discharge, and requested that the ARD committee reimburse her the costs associated with her placement at Vanguard. A.R. 1099, 1101, 2179-2180. LISD declined to approve the placement at Vanguard. A.R. 1105-1107.
While S.C. was at Vanguard, in November 2011, Drs. Ruth Aspy and Barry Grossman of the Ziggurat Group (a group with expertise in the field of autism spectrum disorders hired by Plaintiff) completed an Independent Educational Evaluation ("IEE") of S.C. A.R. 1109-1140. The IEEshowed that S.C. "displayed characteristics of a student with a significant disability," noting that "[s]pecifically she displays significant symptoms of depression and anxiety," and recommended that the ARD committee should consider eligibility for S.C. under the category of emotional disturbance. A.R. 1134-1135. They also recommended that a comprehensive evaluation for an autism spectrum disorder be conducted and suggested further evaluations in the area of speech, especially pragmatic language, as well as an occupational therapy evaluation. A.R. 1134. The IEE also recommended that Plaintiff consult with S.C.'s physician regarding a combination of drug therapy and specialized cognitive-behavior counseling. Id.
Plaintiff filed her request for a due process hearing on January 26, 2012. A.R. 26-34. Plaintiff argued that the District violated the IDEA by failing to identify S.C. as a student needing special education and by failing to provide her with a free appropriate public education. A.R. 27.
On or about March 2, 2012, while the due process proceeding was pending and S.C. remained at Vanguard, an ARD meeting was held at Lewisville ISD to review the findings in the Ziggurat Group's IEE. A.R. 1142. The ARD committee maintained S.C.'s eligibility for services for emotional disturbance and proposed further evaluations for autism, pragmatic language, occupational therapy, as well as an evaluation of S.C.'s math skills. A.R. 1168. The ARD committee recommended that S.C. be placed in a general education setting with inclusion support and adult supervision at all times and that there be specific training for S.C.'s teachers to address her need for adult supervision. A.R. 1169. The committee further recommended the assignment of a trusted adult to S.C. and the assistance of general education and special education counselors toassist with her emotional needs. A.R....
To continue reading
Request your trial