Knox v. St. Louis City Sch. Dist.

CAROLYN KNOX, On behalf of her minor grandson, J.D., Plaintiff, v. ST. LOUIS CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

Case No. 4:18-CV-216-PLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

June 30, 2020

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Carolyn Knox (Grandmother) initiated this lawsuit seeking attorney fees and costs after the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) found that Defendant St. Louis City School District (the District) had denied her grandson J.D. (Student) a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. [ECF No. 1] In its answer, the District denied Grandmother's entitlement to fees and costs and counterclaimed for judicial review of the AHC's decision. [ECF No. 14] Both sides moved for judgment on the administrative record [ECF Nos. 59, 62] and summary judgment on Grandmother's complaint for attorney fees [ECF Nos. 59, 65]

I. Background

Student, who was born in July 2008, has the medical diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and disruptive mood dysregulation disorder. Student attended Peabody Elementary School (Peabody) from August 2013 until March 2017.

Grandmother filed a due process complaint in February 2017, alleging that the District denied Student a FAPE and violated its child-find obligation by failing to initiate "a full and individual initial evaluation" to determine Student's eligibility under the IDEA, despite evidence of a suspected disability. [R. at 6]¹ Grandmother asked the District to (1) immediately evaluate Student to determine his eligibility under the IDEA, as well as (2) provide compensatory services, such as academic tutoring and counseling. She later amended the due process complaint to allege that the District denied Student a FAPE and violated the IDEA's child-find obligation by failing to find Student eligible for special education services and failing to develop an individualized education plan (IEP) for Student until March 2017. [R. at 26]

After a hearing, the AHC found that the District did not deny Student a FAPE in April 2015 when it determined that Student did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for Emotional Disturbance (ED), but it violated the IDEA's procedural requirements because it failed to consider whether Student satisfied the criteria for Other Health Impairment (OHI), a category that can qualify children with ADHD for special education services. Next, the AHC found that the District violated its child-find obligation when it failed to reevaluate Student's IDEA eligibility after receiving a copy of his independent educational evaluation (IEE) in November 2016.

Grandmother filed a complaint in this Court for attorney fees claiming that she was the prevailing party in the administrative proceeding and therefore entitled to attorney fees pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B). The District counterclaimed, requesting that the Court reverse the portions of the AHC's decision that are adverse to the District and enter judgment in favor of the District on all claims.

II. Evidence Presented to the AHC

A. Kindergarten (2014-2015 School Year)

Student repeated kindergarten at Peabody during the 2014-2015 school year.² Student exhibited disruptive behaviors throughout Fall 2014, including fighting with staff and other students, running from the classroom and the building, and throwing things. Student was sent home early and suspended "numerous times" during this period. [ECF No. 60-1 at ¶ 11]

In September 2014, Grandmother requested an IDEA evaluation for Student, and a Student Intervention Team (SIT) met later that month.³ The SIT determined that Student's "behavior is preventing him from learning," but decided to "track the times, duration and frequency it occurs, and if any learning is taking place." [R. at 970] The SIT scheduled another meeting for the following month.

In January 2015, Student's kindergarten teacher, Ms. Dubbs, emailed Peabody's school counselor, Ms. Harris, expressing concern that Student's behavior was escalating as he fell "further behind academically." [R. at 974] Ms. Dubbs inquired about the status of an IEP for Student and requested an SIT or review of documents (RED) meeting, as well as counseling or group therapy for Student. [R. at 974] Later that month, Student received a two-day suspension for threatening to stab Ms. Harris. [R. at 976-77]

In early-February 2015, Peabody's principal emailed the District's special education process coordinator regarding Student's behavioral problems. [R. at 978-79] The principal wrote that, earlier in the day, Student threatened a student with a rock, threw a toy at another student, tried to elope from the building, yelled profanity, and masturbated in class. [R. at 979] On February 20, Peabody conducted an RED meeting as part of an initial eligibility evaluation.

In March 2015, Student began treatment with advanced practice nurse (APN) Gina Bufe at Mercy Clinic Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. APN Bufe diagnosed Student with ADHD and prescribed Adderall, which Student began taking on March 27.⁴ The same day, Ms. Harris, Ms. Dubbs, Peabody's principal, the District's psychological examiner, and the school social worker met to consider Student's eligibility and decided to monitor Student's response to the medication and reconvene in April.

The District held Student's eligibility meeting on April 17, 2015 and issued an "Initial Psycho-educational Evaluation." [R. at 1065-77] The eligibility team concluded that: (1) Student did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for a diagnosis of Intellectual Disability; (2) Student was not eligible for a diagnosis of Specific Learning Disability because his "achievement is commensurate with cognition"; (3) Student was able to "learn in an educational setting"; and (4) although Student "demonstrates inappropriate behaviors in the classroom, there is insufficient information at this time to warrant a diagnosis of Emotional Disorder." [R. 1076] The evaluation did not address whether Student satisfied the criteria for OHI.

B. First Grade (2015-2016 School Year)

Student's disciplinary records reveal that the "extreme" behaviors Student exhibited in kindergarten continued in first grade. In September 2015, Student received a one-day suspension after he refused to sit down, chased a student around the room while cursing, threw a chair at a student, and ran from the classroom. [R. at 909-10] Later that month, Student punched two students in their faces. [R. at 913]

On October 2, Student received a one-day suspension because he "launched himself" at aclassmate who was "sitting quietly at her desk" and "punch[ed] her several times in the face and side of the head." [R. at 915-16] A report from October 20, stated that Student pushed a chair at his teacher, Ms. Washington, and continuously eloped from the classroom and ran through the halls. On November 9, Student fought with another student. [R. at 917]

On December 7, 2015, Student "started running around hitting the other students," cursed and threw a chair at his teacher, "ran over to a little girl and smacked her in the face," ran out of the classroom and upon, his return, "started kicking and punching another female student[.]" [R. at 920-21] Three days later, Student was disciplined for using profanity during class and threatening to hit the teacher. [R. at 922] On December 16, Student began punching and kicking another child. [R. at 923] When Ms. Washington attempted to intervene, Student threw a chair at her, hitting her in the chest. [Id.] Student received a two-day suspension. That same month, Dr. Liberati, began providing Student therapy at school, focusing on anger management and skills building.

In February 2016, at Ms. Washington's request, Student transferred to another teacher's first-grade classroom. Student had a positive relationship with that teacher and demonstrated improvement in her classroom. In April, the District's psychological examiner, informed the District's special education process coordinator that Student had made "great strides in his behavior" and, according to his new teacher, Ms. Lindsey, "there are times when [Student's] behavior is off task but [he] can be redirected." [R. at 1042] In May, Dr. Liberati closed Student's therapy citing Student's improvement.⁵

Despite the reported improvements in Student's behavior and academic performance during Spring 2016, he received a grade of "X", meaning "area of concern," in every subjectexcept physical education. [R. at 900-01] Student's effort grades reflected "little or no effort" in math and "minimal effort" in language and reading. [Id.] Student attended three days of summer school but withdrew due to behavior problems. [R. at 881]

C. Second Grade (2016-2017 School Year)

During Fall 2016, Student's behavioral problems, including physical and verbal aggression, destruction of property, elopement, and refusal to complete assignments, escalated. Peabody staff implemented numerous behavioral interventions, all of which were ineffective.

In late-September 2016, Student underwent an IEE at Miriam Learning Center.⁶ [R. at 1081-1102] In regard to Student's academic performance, the IEE concluded:

[Student's] academic skills are severely depressed with skills at the kindergarten level across the board. The WJ-IV yielded scores that were generally 1-2 years below his current grade placement. Basic reading skills were Low (76); reading comprehension Low (70); reading fluency Very Low (67); math calculation skills Low (76); math problem solving Low Average (81); and written language Low Average (81). The Gray Oral Reading quotient found rate, accuracy, fluency, and comprehension to be below the 1st grade level. The overall quotient of 73 fell at the 4th percentile. [Student] has a very limited sight word vocabulary. He struggles so much to decode words that he misses the meaning of the passage.

[R. 1092] As to Student's...