Suicidal Student Denied Appropriate Education, Says Mother

If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100.

A genuine issue of material fact existed about whether the decision a suicidal middle school student did not qualify for special education denied that student of a free, appropriate public education, in violation of IDEA, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. J. Daniel Scruggs, a public school student, was diagnosed with a learning disability in second grade. In 1997, his planning and placement team decided he should receive 2.5 hours of special education instruction per week.

In 2000, his planning and placement team concluded he did not qualify for special education. Daniel's mother alleged that he was bullied constantly, and students threw him down a flight of stairs. School officials claimed he had problems with hygiene, and the plaintiff did not follow their advice about counseling. On Dec. 4, 2001, his planning and placement team met and suggested tests. Daniel committed suicide on Jan. 2, 2002. His mother s December 2003, suit claimed a continuing course of conduct and was filed timely. The court found the defendants waited months after reports about poor completion of academic tasks, emotional outbursts and absenteeism to request a planning and placement team meeting. Genuine issue of material fact existed about whether the 2000 decision that Daniel did not qualify for special education denied Daniel of a free, appropriate public education, in violation of IDEA. Absent evidence the defendants encouraged bullying, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the assertion that Daniel was deprived of due process, as a result of failure to prevent bullying. Courts have held that schools have no duty pursuant to the Due Process Clause to prevent student-on-student assaults. There was no evidence the defendants affirmatively placed Daniel in harm s way, although they denied his mother s request to separate him from a student who previously assaulted him. The court also granted summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiff s contention the defendants were deliberately indifferent and failed to train or supervise school workers. There was no evidence other special education students were bullied. There was a genuine issue whether a superintendent knew about a truancy complaint and negligently mismanaged workers. The defendants were granted summary judgment on Americans With Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims, absent evidence discriminatory animus motivated any failure to provide a free, appropriate public education. The defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. A jury could find that individual defendants violated Daniel s procedural rights under the IDEA or his substantive right to a free, appropriate public education. Even if the defendants knew about bullying, the mother did not establish her son was an identifiable person, subject to imminent harm, and the defendants were granted summary judgment on a negligence count.

If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

For continuous access to the legal world, follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn. We offer the latest updates on caselaw and legal news. In addition, informational videos are available for your convenience on our YouTube channel. 

Source- Genuine Issue About Denial Of Free And Appropriate Education, Conn. Law Tribune, Aug 17 2007 at ctlawtribune.com