A federal judge from the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed a lawsuit from a high school football player, alleging that a school district did not do enough to accommodate him after he suffered multiple concussions.
The court will allow Robert Wellman, Jr. to refile his complaint, but only after he exhausts the administrative remedies that are at his disposal.
As a freshman at Butler Area High School in Butler, Pennsylvania, Wellman suffered a concussion on August 31, 2009, while participating in a game of flag football during his physical education class.
Two days later, Rebecca Wellman, the plaintiff’s mother, called the school to inform them of her son’s injuries and that he would be returning shortly, but that he would need special accommodations until he returned to full health.
She requested he be removed from his German and P.E. class and be placed in extra study halls so he would have extra time to complete his work and rest. She also requested his teachers be made aware of his situation so they would not ask Wellman to participate in any “unsuitable activity or any activity which might aggravate his symptoms or conditions,” according to the complaint.
On September 14, Wellman went to the Children’s Hospital due to his persistent symptoms and underwent an EEG test. Dr. Ira Bergman proceeded to write a letter to the school’s principal, Dr. John Wyllie, asking that Wellman receive academic accommodations. The complaint states that “his letter was ignored, and Wellman was not given any accommodations.”
On September 30, Wellman attended his school’s football game with the expectations of being able to sit on the sideline with his team to cheer them on and offer his support. Ms. Wellman had called the football coach ahead of time, informing him that Wellman was still suffering symptoms of his concussion and explained that he had not been cleared to participate in the game and that he simply wanted to support his teammates.
The plaintiff claimed that, “his coach ignored Ms. Wellman’s warnings and told Wellman to act as a lineman and hold one of the flags on the side of the field. Wellman was not… wearing any protective gear… and was reinjured during that game when a player, in full pads and uniform, ran into him knocking him over during a play.” The plaintiff was diagnosed with post-concussion syndrome.
After several unsuccessful attempts to return to school, Mr. Wellman and his parents sued, claiming the district failed to accommodate the disabilities he incurred as a result of his multiple head injuries, and also that the school district failed to protect him from further injuries. He alleged that the school district and Wylie failed to follow both state and federal disability laws, and sought both compensatory and punitive damages.
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), plaintiffs must exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing a suit in federal court, meaning that district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over such actions unless and until they are brought by a “party aggrieved by the findings and decisions’ made during or pursuant to the impartial due process hearing.” Batchelor v. Rose Tree Media School District, 759 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A). That court further stated that the statute “bars plaintiffs from circumventing the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement by taking claims that could have been brought under IDEA and repackaging them as claims under some other statute—e.g., section 1983, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, or the ADA. Jeremy H. v. Mount Lebanon Sch. Dist., 95 F.3d 272, 281 (3d Cir.1996). Thus, determining if the IDEA’s administrative process must be exhausted before bringing claims in federal court turns on whether the parties could have asserted the claims under the IDEA. Intertwined with this inquiry is whether the claim could have been remedied by the IDEA’s administrative process. This means that, absent the application of any exceptions, all of (the plaintiffs’) claims made pursuant to the IDEA require exhaustion, as do any claims asserted under Section 504 and the ADA, if they seek relief that is available under the IDEA.”
The instant court noted that the plaintiff argued that he “already exhausted his administrative remedies.
“Mr. Wellman’s problem, as the court sees it, is that his actions after sustaining his concussion indicate that his case is covered by Batchelor, and that in essence he has pled himself into Batchelor. Why so? From the very beginning, he treated the factual circumstances arising in this case as dealing with ‘matters relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.’ Batchelor, 759 F.3d at 274 (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)(A)) He clearly thought the IDEA was implicated, in that he initially filed a due process complaint, pursuant to that statute.”
The court concluded that Mr. Wellman’s claims in the suit are “inherently related to his identification, evaluation, and placement under the provisions of the IDEA. Post-Batchelor (if not before), this is the type of case that falls squarely within the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement.”
Thus, the case was “dismissed without prejudice as to all counts due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on Mr. Wellman’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies under the IDEA.”
Robert Wellman v. Butler Area School District et al; W.D. Pa.; Civil Action No. 13-cv-0616, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117146; 9/2/15
Attorneys of Record (for plaintiff) Edward A. Olds, LEAD ATTORNEY, Pittsburgh, PA; Elizabeth M. Edwards, Olds Russ & Associates LLC, Pittsburgh, PA. (for defendants) Thomas E. Breth, Thomas W. King, III, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Dillon, McCandless, King, Coulter & Graham, Butler, PA.
