News

Sleeth and Carelli Successfully Argue in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Upholding Rule that ADD and ADHD Students Not Automatically Entitled to Special Education Services.

July 25, 2007

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal recently published an important case for school district in Special Education, related to ADD and ADHD. This opinion provides a new rule to determine whether a student with one of these disabilities is entitled to special education services.

Just because a student has one of those disabilities does not mean that the student is entitled to special education services. This published case provides some help for school districts in determining whether a disabled student qualifies for special education services. In the past, parents and parent advocates often argued that it was not enough that a student was progressing in school. They frequently contended that a disabled student who was progressing was nevertheless entitled to special education services, which often meant high costs to school districts, including tuition for expensive private schools.

Anna Hood was a student with a high I.Q. and getting above-average grades, but she was not progressing in math and citizenship to her parents' satisfaction. There was evidence that she did not like math, was not completing homework, and was not well organized. Anna had treatment for some disabilities, including vision problems, Atttention Deficit Disorder, and seizures, but there was no medical evidence that any disability effected her studies. Nevertheless, the School District assumed the disabilities were part of the problem, and provided a "504 Plan" to, among other things, seat her near the teacher, and give her extra time and help.

Her parents asked the School District to identify her as a special education student and provide additional services. The School District performed the required assessments and tests, but concluded that she was not qualified for special education services. The parents removed her from the school and placed her in a private school. The parents filed with the California Special Education Hearing Office, asking that the school district be ordered to pay tuition for the private school. The Hearing Officer agreed with the School District that Anna did not qualify for special education services. The parents filed for review in the Federal District Court. Jack Sleeth and Paul Carelli defended in Federal Court. The District Court judge, the Hon. Roger T. Benitez, agreed with the Hearing Officer and confirmed the decision denying special education. The parents appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.

The Ninth Circuit confirmed the decision of the District court and the Hearing Officer. In a published opinion that established a new rule for cases involving ADD, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a student whose disability can be corrected in the regular classroom and who is progressing from grade to grade is gaining a benefit from the education, and is therefore not entitled to special education services. This case will make it easier for school districts to determine whether a student is entitled to special education services, and may result in some reduction in costs for school districts for tuition to private schools providing special education services.

Other News

Stutz Partners Sleeth and Morris to Speak at the 2010 Association of Chief Human Resource Officers Association Conference

Sttuz Artiano Supports Crime Victim's Fund

View all News Items

Announcements

Derek Paradis Joins the Firm's Education and Employment Law Practice

Partner Jeff Morris Selected as One of the Best Inland Empire Attorneys

View all Announcements