Summary of Student v. School District
In July of 2008, in a federal civil rights case filed in 2007 under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act on behalf of a child with a debilitating physical disability, the firm obtained a substantial settlement amount from the defending School District in resolution of the case. The family had alleged that the School District had failed to put appropriate supports and accommodations in place to educate the child in the public school environment. This Office of Civil Rights ruling, the result of a complaint also filed by the firm, was instrumental to the settlement process.

Summary of Student v. Region No. 9 Board of Education
A case involving a student with an emotional disability who was not referred to a PPT in a timely manner after the school district had received sufficient information establishing that the student had a suspected disability. Several months later, the school district convened a PPT meeting and the school district then determined that the student was ineligible for special education despite the detailed information presented by the parents, a treating professional, and the results from a recent evaluation report. Instead, the school district insisted that the student return to Connecticut for an evaluation by high school personnel even though the student was not medically stable and could not leave the therapeutic program selected by the parents. The Hearing Officer found the school district had failed to refer the student to a PPT meeting in a timely manner and therefore violated its Child Find obligations under state and federal special education law. In addition, the Hearing Officer found the PPT had received sufficient information to determine student’s eligibility under the emotional disturbance category and its failure to develop an IEP at that time had denied the student FAPE. The Hearing Officer also found the school district’s insistence that the student leave the therapeutic program and return to Connecticut for an evaluation was unreasonable given the fact that the student was not medically stable. Further, the Hearing Officer found that the school district’s decision to reject the parents’ reasonable evaluation alternatives including their willingness to pay for the school district’s travel expenses was unreasonable and rejected its claim that it had an absolute right to insist that the student return to the high school for an evaluation and observation by school personnel under the circumstances presented. The Hearing Officer concluded that the school district had denied the student FAPE for the 2006-07 school year and ordered the school district to reimburse the costs of the private therapeutic programs selected by the parents. The Hearing Officer also found gross procedural violations and provided an award of compensatory education requiring the school district to reimburse other therapeutic and educational expenditures.

Connecticut Department of Education, Final Decision and Order Case No. 07-094 (August 23, 2007) Hearing Officer Spak

This case was appealed by the Defendant School District Region 9 which filed a civil action in federal court seeking to overturn the hearing officer’s decision. In an August 6, 2009 decision, Judge Warren Eginton found in favor of the parents and granted their motion for summary judgment, affirming the hearing officer’s decision. Judge Eginton specifically held that the District blatantly failed to follow its Child Find obligations by never referring the student to a PPT meeting and not requesting that the Student be evaluated. This decision affirmed the parents’ award of tuition reimbursement for their unilateral placement at a therapeutic residential school in Utah.. See Regional School District No. 9 v. Mr. and Mrs. M, No. 07:cv:1484 (WWE) (D.Conn. August 6, 2009).

Summary of Student v. Board of Education
A case which awarded the family two years of private school tuition for a 12 year old, learning disabled child. The hearing officer found that the school district failed to provide FAPE during the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years, and failed to offer Free and Appropriate Education(FAPE) for the 2006-2007 school year. The parent was awarded tuition reimbursement for the unilateral placement of the child at Ben Bronz, and the child was entitled to compensatory education in the form of placement of the child at Ben Bronz Academy for the 2007-2008 school year, or a similar placement if Ben Bronz Academy is not available for the Student.

Final Decision and Order 06-248 - May 17, 2007 - Hearing Officer Oppenheim

Summary of Student v. Fairfield Board of Education
A case which awarded the family a year and half of tuition reimbursement at a residential therapeutic placement for an emotionally disturbed high school student. Due to the complexity of the student’s needs, the hearing officer found that the school district failed to offer Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) during the second half of the 2005-2006 school year and for the 2006-2007 school year. Accordingly, the Parent was awarded tuition reimbursement at the F.L. Chamberlain School in Massachusetts.

Final Decision and Order 06-170 - March 30, 2007 - Hearing Officer Strong

Summary of Regarding Child With a Disability
A Connecticut Birth to Three System case on behalf of a two year old child whose parents had disputed the IFSP. The Hearing Officer found that the Birth to Three System’s service provider had ignored the expert medical opinions and had been reluctant or unresponsive to the parents’ request to provide additional services that were appropriate for the child’s complex needs. The Hearing Offer had ordered the Birth to Three System to reimburse the parents’ costs for private services; to revise the child’s IFSP and implement the services recommended by the medical experts; and ordered an ABA program following an evaluation of that need.

Connecticut Birth to Three System Final Decision and Order No. 07-02 (3/16/07)

Summary of Student v. Fairfield Board of Education
A decision finding that the Board did not offer a 15-year-old visually impaired student an appropriate program. The decision further ordered the Board to fully fund the parents’ requested placement at Perkins School for the Blind for the 2006-2007 school year, including the residential portion of the program.

Final Decision and Order 06-134 - January 4, 2007 - Hearing Officer Mary Elizabeth Oppenheim

Summary of Student v. Regional School District 9
A decision finding that the Board did not provide a 16 year old student with Pervasive Developmental Disorder an appropriate program. The decision further ordered the Board to pay for the cost of the Student’s placement at the Devereux School for the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school year other than the costs associated with the residential aspects of the placement.
Final Decision and Order #05-361, July 10, 2006; Hearing Officer Scott P. Myers

This case was appealed by the Defendant School District Region 9 which filed a civil action in federal court seeking overturn the hearing officer’s decision. In a January 12, 2009 decision, Judge Christopher Droney ruled in favor of the parents, granting their motion for summary judgment and affirming the hearing Officer’s decision. In his opinion, Judge Droney held that the District’s failure to provide an appropriate transition plan to bring the Student back to the public school setting amounted to a denial of FAPE. Judge Droney upheld the parents’ award of tuition reimbursement for the Devereux Glenholme School. See Regional School District No. 9 Board of Ed. v. Mr. and Mrs. P, No. :06:cv:1278 (CFD) (D. Conn. January 12, 2009)

Student v. School District, Office of Civil Rights
In May of 2006, a child with a debilitating physical disability and her parent filed a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) against a School District alleging that the homebound tutoring program it offered to her failed to provide her with an appropriate education. In October of 2006, OCR rendered a decision affirming this allegation and finding that the public school’s homebound tutoring program was indeed inappropriate and a denial of FAPE. The decision required that the District provide the child with compensatory education and also ordered the District change its policies for administration of its homebound tutoring program.