PHILADELPHIA – A U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania has dismissed a counterclaim and granted in part and denied in part the Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record of Pottsgrove School District with regards to a former student who suffered from autism.
Judge Gene Pratter wrote that the court was granting in part and denying in part the school district’s motion for judgement on the administrative record, the motion to dismiss the counterclaim was deemed moot, and the case was remanded to a hearing official.
The case stems from a dispute between the mother of D.H, the student who attended the school until second grade, and the school district following a hearing claiming the school district “deprived him of a free appropriate public education,” according to the court decision.
“During his three years at the Pottsgrove school, school personnel physically restrained D.H. over 25 times, including one incident in which personnel called the police,” Judge Pratter wrote.
There was also documentation that D.H. had many toileting accidents throughout his time at the school.
During the course of the dispute, D.H.’s mother sued the school district and there was a hearing held where the educational hearing officer sided with her against the school district.
According to the court decision, there were two factors that supported the hearing officer’s conclusion including “the absence of important voices during IEP meetings” and “inadequate behavior plans in D.H.’s IEP [Individualized Education Plan].”
In its conclusion, the court determined that the hearing officer erred by failing to acknowledge the Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) performed during pre-kindergarten and also by requiring an FBA based on direct observation by a Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA).
Thus, they remanded the case stating “the hearing officer should reevaluate her conclusion in light of (i) the pre-kindergarten FBA and (ii) the Court’s instruction that a subsequent FBA by a BCBA was not required by law.
“The Court affirms the hearing officer’s assessment of the IEP meeting in first grade,” Judge Pratter wrote.
“The Court agrees with the hearing officer that D.H.’s first grade year was not as rosy as the school district portrays it.”
He noted in the decision that the hearing officer needed to focus on three areas, which include the denial of Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), hours of compensatory education and the issues raised in the counterclaim.