WHAT WE LEARNED LAST YEAR

IMPORTANT CASES FOR YOUR PRACTICE

LAURA TUBBS BOOTH & ELIZABETH MESKE &

CHRISTIAN R. SHAFER 2022

EIGHT CIRCUIT DECISIONS OF NOTE

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

DOE V. ABERDEEN SCHOOL DISTRICT

• Staff that pushed student with disabilities into the water
• Pinned a student down, stripped the student to get him into his bathing suit
• And used the “little room” 247 times between end of October and March
• Were found to have engaged in unreasonable seizures
• District was also potentially liable for supervisory failure

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

JP BY OGDEN V. BELTON SCHOOL DISTRICT

• JP had significant needs and was educated in a special education classroom all day
• His school proposed a separate, public school
• Parent argued that the separate school was not the LRE and in the alternative, if he needed additional services they should be imported to his current school

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

JP

• The test is whether the student would not benefit from mainstreaming or benefit would be incidental and far outweighed by benefits that could not be feasibly be provided in the mainstream and when the student disrupts others learning
• Student’s attention span was 20 seconds and increased to 30-40 seconds and he made slow incremental growth on his goals
• Court found that placement in a segregated program was appropriate

​

MINNETONKA PUB. SCH. V. M.L.K.

M.L.K. CONTINUED

• Hearing Officer ordered:
• Wilson Reading
• 2 hours daily
• Until student completed Step 12 including M-F during the summer

​

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

Affirms the hearing officer’s decision because the district failed to “identify the student’s two most significant disabilities, dyslexia and attention”

The School District appealed

THE 8^TH CIRCUIT SPEAKS

• The 8^th Circuit held that the School District did identify attention and a reading disability including its components although the District did not label the conditions “dyslexia” or “ADHD”.
• The Court noted that the MDE did not endorse school staff diagnosing dyslexia
• And the Court held that the Student did receive a FAPE given his progress albeit slow progress

QUICK NOTE OF THANKS TO:

• MASE�MASA �MSBA
• Roseann Schriefels and Eric J. Magnuson

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT CASES

A.K.B. V. ISD 194

• Student with asthma
• Health plan to use nebulizer before phy ed
• Has attack at school
• Court holds that the allegations could establish “deliberate indifference”

A.J.T. V. OSSEO AREA PUB. SCH. 2022

• Student with seizure disorder cannot attend school until noon
• School district agrees to this shortened day and adds time at the end of the day
• Hearing Officer orders that the student be educated from noon – 6pm daily

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

NOTICE A PATTERN HERE…?

MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

MN COURT OF APPEALS – PRIVATE SCHOOLS –JAN. 2022

• Student’s IEP called for an FM system for “all parts of his school day”
• He attended a private, religious school
• School determined that AT would not be provided at private schools
• MN Court of Appeals held that the school failed to individualize the determination

MN COURT OF APPEALS – 10/10/22

• School district offered several ways for students to receive special education during COVID
• Parent refused all
• MDE held that “merely making the services is available, is not enough”
• Because the students did not receive any services, MDE ordered compensatory education

MN COURT OF APPEALS – “AVAILABLE IS NOT THE SAME AS RECIEVED

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA-NC

OAH TRANSITION 9/20/22

• Student enrolling with IEP from another state
• District proposed initial evaluation & parent did not consent
• Parent of 18 year old student refused consent to established transition program
• Argued it was not the least restrictive environment because it was segregated
• High School was the LRE

OAH TRANSITION CASE

• The district argued that mainstream HS classes were “categorically inappropriate”.
• “If this were true, the [act] would not have expressly required FAPE be provided thru age 21”
• District did not establish that those skills could not be worked on at the HS
• The IEP was agreed upon – placement was not
• Summary judgment was denied

CLOSING THOUGHTS…

The RRM Special Education Law Team