805 F. Supp. 2d 1283
M.D. Ala.2011Background
- K.I. has arthrogryposis with limited movement, non-verbal by speech, wheelchair-bound, and requires extensive nursing care and invasive procedures at school.
- From preschool until 2004, K.I. attended the Children's Center, a medically staffed, self-contained special-education setting with nurses on site; she missed many days due to illness/surgery.
- MPS offered homebound services in 2000–2001, which were rejected until 2005; by filing, K.I. was receiving weekly in-home services after leaving the Children's Center.
- In 2005, Dr. Laura Vogel evaluated K.I. and emphasized assistive communication technology and exposure to non-disabled peers; no comprehensive cognitive or assistive-technology evaluations were previously performed.
- Jennie I., K.I.’s mother, challenged the adequacy of evaluations and the IEPs, alleging lack of comprehensive evaluations, overly segregated placement, insufficient assistive technology, and absence of homebound services when needed.
- A due-process hearing was held (finished May 8, 2006), with the hearing officer finding MPS provided a FAPE in the least restrictive environment (the Children's Center); this court then reviews the decision and motions on cross-pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did MPS's evaluation of K.I. comply with IDEA requirements? | K.I. was not comprehensively evaluated, lacking cognitive and assistive-technology assessments. | MPS conducted sufficient evaluations; some areas were not necessary or were deferred pending further data. | Court held MPS failed to conduct comprehensive cognitive/assistive-tech evaluations. |
| Was the IEP designed to provide a FAPE given the lack of baseline evaluations? | Without proper evaluations, the IEP could not set measurable goals or provide appropriate benefits. | IEP goals may be determined with available data and can be updated after further evaluation. | Court found no adequate IEP due to missing baseline evaluations. |
| Did MPS educate K.I. in the least restrictive environment as required by IDEA? | K.I. should be mainstreamed and provided inclusive opportunities with non-disabled peers. | Children's Center placement, with appropriate supports, was the LRE for K.I. | Court held K.I. was appropriately mainstreamed and that placement at the Children's Center met LRE for now, though future reevaluation allowed. |
| Was homebound service offered appropriately under IDEA before 2005? | Oral offers prior to 2005 violated IDEA's written-IEP placement requirements. | Oral offers were made and should be honored; written form was not strictly required. | Court found failure to place in writing was procedural violation but not a denial of a FAPE. |
| Does § 504 require a damages remedy given the IDEA compliance findings? | MPS's conduct showed bad faith/gross misjudgment in denying rights under § 504. | If the IDEA was satisfied, § 504 damages are not automatically available; failure to provide FAPE is required for damages. | Court denied § 504 damages; § 504 claims require more than IDEA violation, which was not established here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greer v. Rome City Sch. Dist., 950 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. 1991) (two-part Greer test for LRE and mainstreaming considerations)
- Loren F. ex rel. Fisher v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 349 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2003) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit)
- Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2008) (IEP must be designed to meet the child’s unique needs and provide education)
- T.W. ex rel. Wilson v. Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty., Fla., 610 F.3d 588 (11th Cir. 2010) (deliberate-indifference/discriminatory animus standards under § 504 in education context)
- H. v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 784 F.Supp.2d 1247 (M.D. Ala. 2011) (district court’s application of IDEA and § 504 standards in Alabama context)