Coleman v. Pottstown Sch. Dist.

983 F.Supp.2d 543

Jean COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.POTTSTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 10–07421.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Nov. 22, 2013.

David J. Berney, Law Offices of David J. Berney, Lawrence Lee Wentz, Law Office of Lawrence Lee Wentz, Giovanni Campbell, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs.

Timothy E. Gilsbach, Blue Bell, PA, for Defendant.

Findings of Fact, Statements of Applicable Law, Conclusions of Law, and Analysis

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

552

A.

Administrative Due Process Complaint

552

B.

Administrative Due Process Hearing

552

C.

Plaintiffs' Case in U.S. District Court

553

D.

Motions to Supplement the Record

553

E.

Parties' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

553

II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

554

A.

Historical Facts

554

1)

R.J.'s Early Years in Baltimore

554

2)

November 2005 Assessments and March 2006 IEP

554

3)

Move to Pottstown and August 2006 Interim IEP

555

B.

Findings of Fact on Contested Issues

556

1)

One–on–One and Lindamood–Bell Style Instruction at Pottstown School District

556

2)

Instruction, Accommodations, and Modifications in Pottstown School District IEPs

556

3)

Transition Planning at Pottstown High School

557

4)

Measurable Goals and Progress Monitoring in R.J.'s October 2006 and October 2007 IEPs

557

5)

Pottstown School District's Response to Student's Behavioral Issues

558

6)

Academic Gains in Identified Areas of Concern, September 2006 through May 2008

559

III.

STATEMENT OF APPLICABLE LAW

562

A.

Standard of Review of Hearing Officer's Decision and Burden of Proof

562

B.

FAPE Standard under the IDEA

562

C.

Procedural Violations of the IDEA and Challenging the Substantive Contents of an IEP

564

D.

New Testing Requirements for In–Transferring Students with Existing IEPs

564

E.

Monitoring Requirements under the IDEA

565

F.

Treatment of Behavioral Issues under the IDEA

565

G.

Transitional Services Requirements under the IDEA

565

H.

Extended School Year (ESY) Services Requirements under the IDEA

566

I.

Compensatory Education

566

J.

Tuition Reimbursement Standard

567

K.

Statutory Framework of Plaintiffs' Claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act

568

IV.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: A THRESHOLD ISSUE

568

V.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS' SPECIFIC DENIAL OF FAPE CLAIMS

569

A.

Reevaluation Upon Enrollment in Pottstown School District

569

B.

No denial of FAPE based on provision of part-time learning support rather than full-time learning support or private placement

570

C.

No denial of FAPE based on lack of “consistent one-on-one instruction”

570

D.

No denial of FAPE for failure to address ongoing behavioral issues

570

E.

No denial of FAPE based on failure to identify secondary exceptionality of “other health impairment” based on R.J.'s ADHD

571

F.

No denial of FAPE based on inadequate or insufficient IEP goals

572

G.

No denial of FAPE based on inadequate progress monitoring

573

H.

No denial of FAPE based on inadequate instruction, accommodations, and modifications in R.J.'s IEPs

573

I.

No denial of FAPE based on insufficient transition planning and programming

574

J.

No denial of FAPE based on denial of extend school year (ESY) services

574

K.

No denial of FAPE based on inadequate social skills training

575

VI.

CONCLUSION

575

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORYA. Administrative Due Process Complaint

On May 13, 2009, Jean and David Coleman (“Parents”), on behalf of their adopted son, R.J., (collectively, “Plaintiffs ¹”), filed an administrative due process complaint against Pottstown School District (“Defendant”) alleging that it had denied a free, appropriate public education (“FAPE”) to R.J. during the 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 school years. See Pennsylvania Special Education Hearing Officer's Decision 2, Sept. 10, 2010, ECF (hereinafter “Admin. Decision”).

The administrative complaint was dismissed without a hearing on June 18, 2009, as the hearing officer found that Parents lacked standing to raise a claim under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Id.; see also Pls.' Proposed Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶ 6, ECF No. 52 (hereinafter “Pls.' Proposed Findings”). Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Id. ¶ 7. The Court remanded the case for an administrative hearing based on the Court's finding that, under the circumstances, Parents met the standing requirements to seek reimbursement for educational expenditures made on R.J.'s behalf. Id. ¶ 8.

B. Administrative Due Process Hearing

On remand, an administrative hearing was convened on March 15, 2010 to hear evidence on Defendant's motion to preclude claims predating May 12, 2007 because of IDEA's two-year statute of limitations. Id. ¶ 11. On April 13, 2010, the Hearing Officer determined that Plaintiffs had established an exception to IDEA's statute of limitations. Id. ¶ 13. Accordingly, Plaintiffs were to be permitted to present substantive evidence of all the events presented in their due process complaint, including those dating back to the beginning of the 2006–07 academic year. Id. ¶ 13. Accordingly, Plaintiffs were to be permitted to present substantive evidence of all the events presented in their due process complaint, including those dating back to the beginning of the 2006–07 academic year. Id. ¶ 13.

Four substantive administrative due process hearings were held on May 18, May 19, August 16, and August 17, 2010. Id. ¶ 10. Based on the evidence presented at these hearings, including a substantial documentary record of R.J.'s academic and behavioral history, the Hearing Officer issued a decision on September 24, 2010 finding that Defendant had not denied R.J. a September 24, 2010 finding that Defendant had not denied R.J. a FAPE, thus denying all of Plaintiffs' claims. Admin. Decision at 15.C. Plaintiffs' Case in U.S. District Court

On December 21, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a civil action in U.S. District Court against Defendant, claiming that the District failed to provide R.J. with a FAPE during the 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 academic years in violation of the IDEA, Section 5 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). See Compl., ECF No. 1; see also Am. Compl., ECF No 9.

D. Motions to Supplement the Record

On April 18, 2011, as part of this ongoing litigation, Plaintiffs propounded upon Defendant a discovery request for R.J.'s academic and behavioral record. See Pls.' Proposed Findings ¶ 21. In response to this request, Defendant produced, for the first time, voluminous documentation of R.J.'s educational record. Id. ¶ 22.

On August 15, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record with various behavioral, academic, and discipline records; representative samples of R.J.'s academic work; and correspondence between various District personnel and Plaintiff R.J.'s adopted brother/advocate, Michael Coleman, which had been produced by Defendant. See Pls.' Mot. Supplement R., ECF No. 28. The Court denied the first Motion to Supplement without prejudice on August 19, 2011, ordering Plaintiffs to file an amended Motion with an attached expert report. See Order Denying Mot. Supplement R., Aug. 19, 2011, ECF No. 29.

Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record on September 2, 2011, this time attaching expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Nancy Bloomfield. See Pl.'s Am. Mot. Supplement R., ECF No. 30. The Court issued an order on February 21, 2012 allowing the Plaintiff to supplement the administrative record with Exhibits E, F, I, H, and J of Plaintiffs' Amended Motion in light of the guidance for allowing supplementation of an administrative record in Antoine M. v. Chester Upland Sch. Dist., 420 F.Supp.2d 396, 402 (E.D.Pa.2006) (Robreno, J.). See Order, Feb. 21, 2012, ECF No. 35, 2012 WL 569000. The Court denied admission of Ms. Bloomfield's expert report, though the Court provided that an amended report might be resubmitted. Id. An amended report was submitted to the Court on August 15, 2012. See Pls.' Am. Expert. Report, ECF No. 43.

On July 26, 2012, Plaintiffs filed another Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record to provide additional context to previously submitted correspondence between Mr. Coleman and Pottstown School District personnel. See Pls.' Mot. Supplement the R., ECF No. 41. This Motion was granted by the Court on January 23, 2013. See Order Granting Pls.' Mot. Supplement the R., ECF No. 56.

On September 21, 2012, the Court held a hearing allowing both sides to present testimony of expert witnesses in the areas of school psychology and developmental psychology. See Hr'g Tr., 7, 43, ECF No. 50. This testimony related to R.J.'s behavioral history and academic progress throughout the years in question. Plaintiffs' witness, Dr. Nancy Bloomfield, as well as Defendant's witness, Dr. Samuel J. Brooks testified at the hearing. Michael Coleman also testified to explain the payment arrangement that he and Parents had with the private Lindamood–Bell program where R.J. received instruction in 2008–09.

E. Parties' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Following the September 21, 2012 hearing, Plaintiffs and Defendant submitted their proposed findings of fact and conclusionsof law on November 15, 2012 and December 5, 2012, respectively.² The case is now ripe for disposition. The Court has reviewed the parties' proposed findings of fact (ECF No. 52 and 55), the supplemented administrative record, the Decision of Pennsylvania Special Education Hearing Officer Cathy Skidmore (ECF No. 15–1), transcripts of the 2010 administrative due process hearings, and other supplementary materials including the testimony and expert reports of Dr. Bloomfield and Dr. Brooks, and the testimony of Michael Coleman. Upon examination of this extensive record, the Court now makes the following material findings of fact.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUNDA. Historical...