Resolution and Mediation Settlements
I have had the opportunity, based on my relationships, reputation and skill to be able to settle hundreds of cases with various districts.
Of course, settlement are confidential, and as such cannot be disclosed here, but they have ranged from tens to hundreds of hours of one to one tutoring, non-public school placements, reimbursements for private school placements and funding for residential treatment centers. As a result of one of my residential placements, the treatment center was able to get California Department of Education funding, which opened up the opportunity for other special needs students to receive their services. I have also negotiated settlements which resulted in six figure special needs trusts for students.
Of course, each student and each case is different. Our children have such unique needs that no example of what worked for someone else will necessarily be right for your child. That is why in my practice parents and I work as a team to discern what will work for each child.
Past Litigated Cases
OAH Case No. N 2007070950
Newport Mesa USD v. Student
I had represented Student since he was in Fifth Grade. By Eighth Grade it was clear that he needed an NPS, which was funded by District. In Tenth Grade District decided that it would be cheaper if he returned to the public school. Parents and NPS felt that it would be severely disruptive to his education. In Eleventh Grade, District brought a Due Process Hearing against Student in an effort to force him to accept their offered public school placement. Student prevailed.
I am happy to report that Student graduated from the NPS and from a four year university.
Based on the reasons stated above, the Hearing Officer concludes that the December 2, 1999 IEP did not offer STUDENT a FAPE because it failed to sufficiently identify STUDENT’s present levels of performance and failed to include appropriate goals and objectives in mathematics and written expression. Additionally, although the Hearing Officer found the proposed goal and objectives regarding study habits and self-reliant behavior to be substantively appropriate, the IEP failed to indicate how the RSP instructor would assist STUDENT with strategies to accomplish the goal and objectives. The District also failed to offer an appropriate placement and class schedule that would have met his academic and transition service needs, and provided him access to the general curriculum. And finally, the December 2, 1999 IEP did not include an offer of preferential seating, and access to the appropriate assistive technology, namely, a calculator, tape recorder, and voice recognition computer software. The IEP was appropriate, however, in its determination that STUDENT did not require extended school year services for the 1999-2000 extended school year.
OAH CASE NO. 2008070703
Student v. Compton Unified
Student, who was in the First Grade had ADHD and substantial behavioral issues, including jumping on tables, throwing crayons and kicking teachers on a regular basis. District offered no behavior support plan to address these problems. Instead, he would be pulled from the classroom and miss instructional time. Student brought a Due Process Hearing claiming a denial of FAPE and requesting the right to have experts of her attorney’s choosing evaluate and suggest programming for Student. Student prevailed and the relief sought was granted.
District appealed case to Federal District Court. Decision was affirmed. District appealed to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but settled before decision.
During the course of this case, Student had to bring several motions for District to furnish records. In the first reported case, Student’s attorney was awarded sanctions against a school District.
As a result of the wonderful work by the experts and the cooperation of several of District’s personnel, Student’s behavior is now under control and he is the top performing student in his Fifth Grade Class.
OAH CASE NO. 2012060109
Student v. Compton Unified
Student was a beautiful 15 year old young woman who lived with a wonderful foster parent and had a diligent Court Appointed Special Advocate. District had evaluated Student for special education on 2 separate occasions and each time found her not to be eligible because she did not meet the learning discrepancy model. In other words, District asserted that she couldn’t read because she was too low functioning. Foster Parent and CASA were sure that this was not true. With the help of Dr. Abbe Barron, a neuropsychologist, who agreed to evaluate Student regardless of whether she would be reimbursed for her time, we were able to demonstrate that Student was severely ADHD and eligible for special education and compensatory services. Student prevailed. District has refused to pay legal fees and the case is now pending in Federal Court.
Student received individual tutoring from a very caring teacher which brought her reading level up 4 grades. Her behavior issues resolved and her self esteem sky rocketed.
2007 WL 3144622
Mccombs V. Value Lodge Enterprises
Edwina McCombs, a Tennessee resident, who was visiting Southern California to vacation with her 8 and 9 year old daughters, was awarded $85,000 when a jury found Value Lodge, an Artesia motel, liable for involuntarily subjecting her girls to hard-core pornographic movies. Ms. McCombs checked into the Value Lodge where she informed the front desk that she was there with her two young daughters. When she was in the room, Ms. McCombs went to take a bath and the children turned on the television to watch a children’s show. Instead, the children were subjected to hard-core pornography with close-up images of people engaged in sodomy and homosexual acts. Leejanice Toback, was co-attorney for McCombs.
This was the first such verdict against a hotel or motel for showing pornography. As a result, the decision made news all over the world.