A district judge from the Middle District of Pennsylvania has held that a school district did enough to accommodate a student athlete, who suffered multiple concussions, in the classroom. The court’s rationale centered on the fact that plaintiff Brenda Perrin, suing on behalf of her son, J.P., failed to show the district’s evaluation process was “inadequate.”
By way of background, J.P. was a student in the Warrior Run School District. In the fall of 2012, he suffered an injury when he jumped over a gym chair as he was leaving gym class, and was diagnosed with a concussion after hitting his head on a door frame. Six days later, he was permitted to return to school. Although he was cleared to return to school, under the “restrictions” area on the form the word “none” was crossed out and the words “not cleared” were written in its place. The next day, a doctor advised the school district that J.P. was being treated for an acute concussion and was not to participate in any contact sports. It was further indicated that J.P. might need certain accommodations to allow him extra time to complete homework and tests administered during this time in the short term.
A couple months later, J.P. suffered a second concussion during a gym class, reportedly when he hit his head on a volleyball pole. He was permitted to return to school, but was not permitted to perform any “mental activity.” On December 17, 2012, a doctor issued another form stating that J.P. would need a “504/IEP” evaluation, and that J.P. should have no mental activities at school, including testing.
During the evaluation process, J.P.’s mother indicated substantial issues for concern, noting a history of aggression, learning disability, depression, anxiety or adjustment problems, alcohol abuse, substance abuse, antisocial behavior, arrest/incarceration, physical abuse (victim), and physical abuse (perpetrator).
The evaluator administered several tests, including the Wechsler Intelligence Scale. As part of this evaluation, the evaluator found a full scale IQ of 91, which is in the average range, and concluded that J.P.’s profile was consistent with normal neuro-cognitive development with no evidence of attention deficit disorder, learning disability, developmental language delay or other cognitive processing disorder. Furthermore, the test results did not indicate any characteristics of classic post-concussion syndrome, which almost always reveals deficits in both lower level executive functioning and learning new information, according to the court. As a result of the testing done, the evaluator found that J.P. had an adjustment reaction with mixed emotional features, and resolving post-concussion syndrome. Because the evaluator found no evidence of deficits across measures of verbal, perceptual motor, lower level executive, higher level reasoning and learning/memory, the evaluator made no specific ability recommendations.
The decision was ultimately appealed to a hearing officer, who on March 17, 2014 “found that the school district’s evaluation was appropriate and complied with all legal requirements, and, therefore, that the Parent was not entitled to an independent educational evaluation at public expense.
“In reaching this conclusion, the hearing officer found that the school district’s evaluation of J.P. was comprehensive, relied on multiple analyses and measures, and was based upon testing and tools administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel. He found that the evaluation was comprehensive in scope and individually focused on J.P., through a process that included review of existing data both before and after J.P.’s concussions, as well as the evaluation of the neuropsychologist that had been conducted earlier. The hearing officer noted that the evaluation considered the observations of teachers, as well as formal classroom observations of J.P. on four separate occasions.” Further, he concluded “that J.P. does not need special education and related services, and that J.P.’s concussions do not substantially limit a major life activity such as learning.”
The plaintiff appealed on June 14, 2014, “seeking to reverse the hearing officer’s adverse decision finding that the student was not eligible for special education services pursuant to the IDEA and Section 504, and that the student was not eligible for compensatory education under the statutes.”
However, the court was unmoved, finding that the plaintiff “has failed to demonstrate that the methodology employed by the district was flawed, and instead merely highlights instances of disagreement with the district’s evaluations and ultimate determination. Thus, the parent has not persuasively argued or explained how the evaluation that was conducted was inadequate or why the conclusions reached from that evaluation should be set aside. Indeed, following our review of the record and the transcript during which multiple witnesses, including the evaluator testified, we find that the record supports the hearing officer’s conclusion that the district’s evaluation was appropriate.”
Brenda Perrin, on behalf of J.P. v. The Warrior Run School District; M.D. Pa.; Civil No. 4:13-CV-2946, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149623; 9/16/15
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Phillip A. Drumheiser, LEAD ATTORNEY, Carlisle, PA. (for defendant) Christina M. Stephanos, Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams LLP, New Britain, PA; Jonathan P. Riba, Sweet Stevens Tucker & Katz LLP, Bucks County Office, New Britain, PA.
