M.G. v. Williamson Cty. Sch.
720 F. App’x 280
| 6th Cir. | 2018Background
- M.G., a Williamson County student (2010–2013), had medical evidence of low muscle tone and coordination deficits; parents obtained private therapy prescriptions in March 2011 but provided much documentation to the school in 2012.
- WCS evaluated M.G. in Dec. 2010 and concluded she was not IDEA-eligible; thereafter WCS used RtI and GEIT interventions and later a Section 504 plan (Oct. 2012) that included therapist classroom consultations but not one-on-one therapy.
- WCS therapists observed M.G. multiple times (including three school observations in May 2013) and repeatedly found her motor skills adequate for school such that direct occupational/physical therapy was unnecessary for educational benefit.
- Parents requested further evaluation and made requests for services on Jan. 11, Apr. 25, and Sept. 4, 2012; WCS did not provide prior written notices in response to those specific requests.
- An administrative hearing (ALJ) ruled for WCS (Aug. 25, 2015); the federal district court affirmed; plaintiffs appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court improperly give weight to the ALJ? | District court over-deferred; ALJ decision was late, relied on WCS proposals, and was biased. | ALJ findings are entitled to due weight when based on educational expertise; district court applied the modified de novo standard. | Affirmed: district court applied correct standard and properly afforded deference to ALJ on education-based findings. |
| Did WCS violate IDEA child-find by failing to re-evaluate M.G. sooner? | WCS should have re-evaluated by Aug. 2011–Jan. 2012 and thus breached child-find. | WCS conducted a 2010 comprehensive evaluation and reasonably used RtI/GEIT and a 504 plan before re-evaluating in Apr. 2013. | Held for WCS: no child-find violation; interventions and prior evaluation justified monitoring period. |
| Did WCS fail to provide prior written notice on parents’ three service requests? | Parents were entitled to prior written notice each time; absence was a procedural violation. | WCS concedes notice omissions but contends no substantive harm occurred and parents were closely involved. | Held for WCS: procedural lapses not remediable because plaintiffs failed to show substantive harm or loss of participation. |
| Did WCS substantively deny FAPE by not providing direct OT/PT (IDEA, §504, ADA, Tenn. law)? | M.G. needed direct, one-on-one occupational and physical therapy to benefit educationally. | School therapists repeatedly found no educational need for direct therapy; physician prescriptions alone do not compel school services. | Held for WCS: plaintiffs failed to show M.G. required related services; no IDEA, §504, ADA, or state-law violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Deal v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840 (6th Cir.) (administrative findings get due weight under modified de novo review)
- Burilovich ex rel. Burilovich v. Bd. of Educ. of Lincoln Consol. Schs., 208 F.3d 560 (6th Cir.) (standard for overturning administrative findings in IDEA cases)
- N.L. v. Knox Cty. Schs., 315 F.3d 688 (6th Cir.) (review standards for district court and IDEA mixed questions)
- L.M. v. Bd. of Educ. of Fayette Cty., 478 F.3d 307 (6th Cir.) (child-find requires evaluation when clear signs are overlooked or no rational justification exists)
- Polk v. Cent. Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16, 853 F.2d 171 (3d Cir.) (physical therapy may be essential prerequisite to education for severely disabled students)
- Ridley Sch. Dist. v. M.R., 680 F.3d 260 (3d Cir.) (a district that conducted a comprehensive evaluation is entitled to reasonable time to monitor before re-evaluating)