G. v. Pocono Mountain School District, 3:16-cv-01130

Background

Karrissa G. enrolled in Pocono Mountain School District (the District) in April 2013 as a 7th grader after relocating from New York; she had no documented disability on enrollment.
She exhibited significant absenteeism in 2012–13 and 2013–14; District placed her in an RTI-style alternative program (Pocono Mountain Academy) with counseling supports rather than initiating an IDEA evaluation immediately.
Her mother requested a full educational evaluation on April 29, 2014; a District school psychologist evaluated Karrissa in June/August 2014 and concluded she did not meet IDEA disability criteria but recommended a Section 504 plan for mild anxiety.
Karrissa briefly enrolled in a cyber charter school in September 2014, returned to the District in November 2014 and received a 504 service plan permitting early class exit and self‑removal to the guidance office; her mother withdrew her again in January 2015.
Karrissa re-enrolled for 10th grade in 2015–16, participated in school-based mental health services, did not regularly use the 504 accommodations, and showed improved attendance and grades.
After an administrative hearing denying relief, Karrissa appealed; the district court affirmed the Hearing Officer, granting judgment to the School District.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether District failed its IDEA Child Find duties by not timely evaluating Karrissa	District should have reasonably suspected an IDEA‑qualifying disability earlier (anxiety + chronic absenteeism) and evaluated sooner	District reasonably treated issues as transient/attendance-related, used RTI supports, and evaluated within a reasonable time	Court held District satisfied Child Find: symptoms did not reasonably indicate an IDEA disability and the June 2014 evaluation was timely
Whether the District’s August 2014 evaluation was sufficiently comprehensive under IDEA	Evaluation was incomplete re: emotional, behavioral, executive functioning and absenteeism; improper to find 504 but not IDEA eligibility	Evaluation was thorough, included records review, teacher input, cognitive/achievement/behavior testing, and addressed anxiety and attendance	Court held evaluation was appropriate and comprehensive; Hearing Officer’s credibility findings given weight
Whether District denied FAPE under Section 504 in 2014–15 by providing inadequate or unimplemented accommodations	504 plan was rudimentary, didn’t address absenteeism or provide meaningful supports, and was not implemented	504 plan addressed identified mild anxiety; District had limited time before mother removed student; plaintiff largely didn’t use accommodations	Court held District provided FAPE in 2014–15: student was in District only briefly after the plan and District had reasonable time to act
Whether District denied FAPE under Section 504 in 2015–16 (tenth grade)	Continued lack of meaningful supports prevented progress commensurate with potential	Student’s attendance and grades improved; she rarely used accommodations; no evidence 504 was insufficient	Court held District provided FAPE in 2015–16; improvements showed accommodations unnecessary or effective

Key Cases Cited

Ridley Sch. Dist. v. M.R., 680 F.3d 260 (3d Cir.) (due‑weight/modified de novo standard and Child Find framework)
D.S. v. Bayonne Bd. of Educ., 602 F.3d 553 (3d Cir.) (modified de novo review and limits on imposing court’s educational policy views)
Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (Supreme Court) (baseline for FAPE deference to educational authorities)
Endrew F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 137 S. Ct. 988 (Supreme Court) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances)
W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d 484 (3d Cir.) (reasonableness of Child Find timing — no bright‑line rule)
P.P. v. West Chester Area Sch. Dist., 585 F.3d 727 (3d Cir.) (Child Find obligation to identify students reasonably suspected of disability)