ILNews

7th Circuit rules school provided appropriate public education

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hamilton Southeastern Schools has prevailed on appeal that it does not have to reimburse two parents for their son’s special education at another institution because they claimed the school system wasn’t providing a free appropriate education to their son, who had a traumatic brain injury.

In M.B., by his parents and next friends, Damian Berns and Amy Berns v. Hamilton Southeastern Schools and Hamilton-Boone-Madison Special Services, No. 10-3096, parents Damian and Amy Berns appealed summary judgment in favor of Hamilton Southeastern Schools and Hamilton-Boone-Madison Special Services on their lawsuit that the school system violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the provisions relating to special education in the Indiana Administrative Code by not providing their son M.B. with a free appropriate public education. M.B. suffered a traumatic brain injury prior to starting kindergarten, and his parents – based on the advice of a neuropsychologist – believed that M.B. needed to be in both sessions of kindergarten offered each day by the school.

The Berns worked with the school to develop an individualized education program, and the school provided some early education, at which M.B. showed progress in a number of areas. But when the Berns learned that the school would not place M.B. in both the morning and afternoon sessions of kindergarten, they placed him in an outside learning center and filed suit seeking reimbursement for M.B. to attend the center.

A hearing officer, the Board of Special Education Appeals, and the District Court all ruled in favor of the school, finding M.B. wasn’t denied a free appropriate public education. On appeal, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.  

The Berns didn’t meet their burden on appeal of establishing any type of procedural defect that rose to the level of a substantive denial of a free appropriate public education. The appellate court also found that M.B.’s individualized education program substantively provided him with a free appropriate public education. The evidence in the record showed that M.B. was making progress toward his IEP goals not only upon receiving early childhood services, but also while receiving extended school year services.

“Given that M.B. was making progress toward his IEP goals while receiving half-day, early-childhood services, it was reasonable for the committee to conclude that M.B. did not require double-session kindergarten to meet his needs,” wrote District Judge Joan B. Gottschall, of the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

The Berns aren’t entitled to any reimbursement for placing M.B. in the learning center because the evidence they presented to establish the propriety of the placement was “deficient in detail” and “general.” They also aren’t entitled to attorney fees because they didn’t prevail on any of their claims.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT