The Lady Lawyer The Lady Lawyer Columns
Special
Education

5th Circuit Cases

7th Circuit Decisions

ABA via Insurance

Accommodations

Advocates

Altering Records

Assistive Technology

Autism Supplement

Basic Definitions

Being An Advocate

Bullying / Harassment

Case Law

Charter Schools

Child Abuse Reporting

Choosing Counsel

Civil Rights Fight

Client Intake Form

Complaints

Compulsory Attendance

COPAA

Documentation

Due Process: How it Works

Evaluations

Extended School Year

Expulsions / Suspensions

Federal Laws

FERPA

First Steps

Funnies/Quotable Quotes

Glossary of Terms

Graduation

Graduation Rates

Graduation Walk

Guardianships

Hearing Officers

History of Federal Statutes

Homeschooling

IEP Checkup

Independent Educational Evaluations

Indiana State Laws

Inspirational Quotes

Insurance

Interrogation of Juveniles

LD & 18-point discrepancy model

Legal Settlement

Legislative Terms

Limitations

Mediation

Medicaid Waivers

Mental Health

Mistakes

Mitigation In Discipline

My Calling

Neuropsych vs. Psychoeducational

New Regulations

OCR Complaints

Open Records

Options

Overview for Attorneys

Parent Essays

Popular vs. Effective

Record Keeping

Resolution Chart

Residential Issues

Resolution Sessions

Sample Letters

Section 504

School Accountability

Special Ed Primer

Social Security

Supreme Court Cases

TAKS M/Alt

Tax Issues

TEKS

Texas Case Law

Texas Hearing Decisions

Texas State Law

Thoughtful Responses

Top 10 List for Judges

Top 10 Tips for Parents

U.S. DOE Study

Web Resources

Wheelchairs

Other Resources

Board of Special Education Appeals

Many individuals who care about children with disabilities are urging the dismantling of the Board of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) in Indiana, which operates under the direction of the Indiana Department of Education.

Those who believe that there is absolutely no need for the BSEA see it as an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that helps no one except EITHER those who wish to portray the schools in the state as being in compliance with state and federal civil rights laws (when in fact that is not the case) OR perhaps those who believe that violations of special education children’s rights are unimportant or to be expected because “those kids” are a lost cause anyway.

There are two big problems that have arisen as a result of this system in which, as the adage says, “the fox is guarding the hen house”:

 

  1. Parents of children with disabilities are being left without due process of law to enforce the laws that already provide civil rights protections to their children when they have their favorable hearing officer decisions overturned by the BSEA, a three-member body who doesn’t attend the hearing and which doesn’t have any extraordinary expertise in special education. Many are shocked to learn that none of them is even licensed to practice law in Indiana.

  2. That families struggling to raise children with disabilities and turn them into productive, tax-paying citizens are the ones being hardest hit by this system that has been corrupted in such a manner as to deny them the due process of law to which they are legally entitled.

 

Background 

In Indiana, when a family and a school district disagree as to educational placement and/or services for a child with disabilities, an administrative Article 7 due process hearing is held before an Independent Hearing Officer (IHO) assigned by the Indiana Department of Education, under Indiana’s Article 7 and under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), formerly known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

In our administrative hearing system, the IHO renders a decision that is considered binding in 30 days, if neither the parent nor the school appeals that decision.

However, if either party appeals, then the appeal must go before the Board of Special Education Appeals (BSEA), which means we have a “two-tier” system in Indiana.

This use of the BSEA is required at this time because both sides are required to exhaust their administrative remedies before proceeding to state or federal court.

The BSEA is a three-member administrative appellate body appointed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction pursuant to 511 IAC 7-30-4(a). The members of the BSEA are not required to be attorneys, not required to have any particular legal experience whatsoever nor are they required to be knowledgeable in any way about educational issues. In fact, the only requirements to become a member of the BSEA are:

(1)   may not be an officer, employee or agent of a public agency involved in the education or care of a student; (2) may not have any personal or professional interest that conflicts with the member’s objectivity in the appeal process; and (3) must be a resident of Indiana. (See 511 IAC 7-30-4 (a).)

Thus, just about anyone who lives in Indiana can be a member of the BSEA after being hand-picked by the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

The three current members of the BSEA are Cynthia Dewes, a parent; Raymond Quist, Ph.D., retired Chair of the Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders at Indiana State University and former hearing officer, and Rolf Daniel, Ph.D., Dean of the School of Psychology, St. Francis University, and former hearing officer.

Despite being charged with applying and interpreting both state and federal laws in their role as members of the BSEA and despite sitting in judgment of the work of IHOs who ARE attorneys, none of these three individuals is licensed as an attorney in the state of Indiana.


Then the BSEA is free to affirm, reverse or affirm in part and reverse in part the decision made by the IHO.

If either party is unhappy with the BSEA’s ruling, only then can either party proceed to state or federal court for resolution of the claim.

 

            Reasons the BSEA should be removed from the equation: 

  1. Waste of taxpayer dollars by schools and resources of parents of disabled children and of schools as they go through a two-tier system vs. a one-tier system.

  2. two-tier system is not necessary. In fact, the vast majority of other states only have a one-tier system, meaning that there IS no board review of the IHO’s decision and that any appeals are filed directly with state or federal court, in a way removing the middleman. Upon realizing that there’s really no purpose for this extra layer of review, several states have recently changed from being two-tier states to being one-tier states.

    The following states are one-tier states, illustrating that there is absolutely no need for this second tier in Indiana:

    Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Washington, D.C., Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Wyoming. Michigan converted from the two-tier system to a one-tier system in 2005 and Pennsylvania did the same in 2008.

    If these states can have a one-tier system, so can Indiana.

    Ask your legislators and Department of Education employees: Why is Indiana among the nation’s last few holdouts with a two-tier system?

  3. The extra layer of bureaucracy created by the existence of the BSEA creates a totally unnecessary extra expense for the schools and state, as well as parents of disabled children, before they can proceed to state or federal court for resolution of any appeals.

  4. The BSEA in Indiana offers no additional special expertise in the resolution of special education matters, given that all dozen of the independent hearing officers in the state of Indiana are already well-trained and well-versed in the laws, disability areas and other related areas.

  5. MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, an analysis of the BSEA’s decisions during the past seven years shows a significant trend for reversal by the BSEA of decisions in favor of parents but not in regard to decisions in favor of schools. In fact, of the seven reversals by the BSEA that have occurred in the past eight years, six of the seven were in favor of the parents at the hearing officer level and were reversed to be in favor of the schools. Significantly, five of those seven cases involved scenarios in which the hearing officer had ordered the school to pay for a private placement for the student because of the school substantive violations of the law. Those five decisions in favor of parents were reversed. Another decision that did not involve private school but was in the parent’s favor was reversed. Only one case out of 85 total cases was in favor of a school at the hearing officer level but reversed to be in favor of the parent, and in that case the school hadn’t even bothered to file a response to the parent’s appeal.

  6. A careful reading of those cases that the BSEA reversed will show uncontroverted evidence (most of the time in the school’s own documents) proving violations of the law. Yet somehow those cases were reversed, without any rational basis, by a panel of three individuals who did not attend the hearing and did not witness any portion of the testimony.

  7. The most recent case reversed by the BSEA where the parent won at hearing and the decision was reversed by the BSEA is from December 2005, L.B. vs. Greater Clark County Schools, et al, Case Number 1502.05. That case is publicly available at http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/legal/appeals.html and can be read online by those interested in it.



ANALYSIS OF BSEA DECISIONS FROM 1997-TODAY 

(Source: You can read full decisions upon which this information is based at http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/legal/appeals.html.)

 

  • There are 88 total cases cited below for the time period 06-26-1997 through 12-02-05 and represent all BSEA decisions posted on the Indiana Department of Education website.

  • Of these 88 cases, three (3) were not used in computing the statistics below because they were dismissed at the BSEA level and thus no BSEA decision was rendered. Specifically, the cases not counted in the statistics below because no BSEA decision was rendered are cases #6 (dismissed as moot), #11 (dismissed as untimely) and #74 (dismissed as moot).

  • Of the 85 total cases considered (which is 88 minus three, for the reasons described above), the BSEA affirmed or largely affirmed the decisions of the hearing officer in 78 cases. Thus, in about 92 percent of the total cases, the BSEA agreed or largely agreed with the IHO’s decisions.

  • Of the 78 cases in which the BSEA affirmed the decisions of the hearing officer, the parents won 24 cases (or 31 percent) that were affirmed and the schools won 54 cases (or 69 percent) that were affirmed.

  • Of the seven (7) cases in which the hearing officer’s decision was reversed by the BSEA, only one of those cases (or 14 percent) was in favor of the school at the hearing level but reversed to be in favor of the parent at the BSEA level (and it’s noteworthy that in that case, which is case #14 cited below, S.M. v. Brown County School Corp., Article 7 hearing No. 1077.98, the school failed to file any response to the parent’s Petition for Review).

  • Thus, in seven years, the BSEA has in ONE instance reversed an IHO decision that was in favor of the school and making the parent the prevailing party.

  • Of the seven (7) cases in which the hearing officer’s decision was reversed, six of those cases (or 86 percent) were in favor of the parent at the hearing level but reversed to be in favor of the school at the BSEA level. Specifically, those cases in which the parent won at hearing, but the decision was reversed by the BSEA to be in favor of the school were the following cases:

    • #17 (L.N. v. Greater Clark County Schools and Greater Clark County Special Education Cooperative, Article 7 hearing No. 1039.98) (Note: The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, found the BSEA’s actions inappropriate in reversing this case and restored the IHO’s decision in favor of the parents in this matter). Payment for private school services ordered by hearing officer and reversed by BSEA.
    • #32 (R.T. vs. Duneland School Corp. and Porter County Education Interlocal, Article 7 hearing No. 1119.99). Payment for private school services ordered by hearing officer and reversed by BSEA.
    • #57 (D.C. vs. Jay School Corp., Article 7 hearing No. 1319.02). No appeal to federal court. This was the one case in which private school services were NOT at issue.
    • #67 (J.K. vs. MSD Southwest Allen County Schools and Smith-Green-West Allen Special Education Cooperative, Article 7 hearing No. 1388.04). Payment for private school services ordered by hearing officer and reversed by BSEA. Federal court affirmed BSEA because deference is given to the BSEA decision, even when wrong.
    • #75 (A.D. vs. Clay Community Schools, Article 7 hearing No. 1373.04). Payment for private school services ordered by hearing officer and reversed by BSEA. Federal court affirmed BSEA because deference is given to the BSEA decison, even when wrong.
    • #88 (L.B. vs. Greater Clark County Schools and Clark County Special Education Cooperative, Article 7 hearing No. 1502.05). Payment for private school services ordered by hearing officer and reversed by BSEA.

 Significantly, of the seven cases cited above in which the BSEA reversed the hearing officer, five of the seven cases, the IHO had ordered the school to pay for a private (not public school) placement or private services for the student, at a cost of several thousand dollars to the school, with one case not involving a private placement and the other case being the one where the reversal was in the parents’ favor but also which did not involve a private placement.

By contrast, there are no BSEA cases during the time period 1997 through today in which the IHO denied the parents’ request for a private placement or services but where the BSEA reversed the hearing officer and awarded private placement or services

Based on this historical overview of all known BSEA decisions since 1997, the following appears to be true:

Although there are no reversals granting a private placement win for a parent, there are five in which the IHO giveth and the BSEA taketh away. If you are a parent and the Independent Hearing Officer finds in your favor and awards private placement or services, based on what has happened historically, if the school appeals, there are FIVE instances where this has happened in the past seven years, where the BSEA reversed the parents’ favorable decision to find in favor of the school and void the private placement and payment, unfairly leaving the parent holding the bag on their litigation expenses.

*** NOTE. This scenario puts parents at a distinct disadvantage in an appeal in state or federal court because the court will defer not to the hearing decision by the hearing officer who actually attended the hearing and was there to judge the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses at the hearing and who personally reviewed all the materials presented as exhibits, but it will defer to the decision of the BSEA, a three-member panel who does not attend the hearing and thus could not possibly judge the demeanor of the witnesses at hearing. Significantly, the BSEA conducts its review without the presence of the parties, as noted in writing in its decisions, and in fact routinely denies motions of counsel to present oral arguments or to attend the BSEA review, also as noted in the decisions, when this has been requested.***

1. By sharp contrast, if you are a school and the IHO finds in your favor, then you might feel comfortable knowing that in 84 out of 85 past cases (or 98.8 percent of the time), the BSEA can be counted on to affirm the decision in your favor because there was only one instance out of 85 cases in which the school’s favorable decision was reversed to be in favor of the parent, and as stated above, in that case, the school had never bothered to file a response to the parent’s Petition for Review.

**** Note: We are not saying that every single private placement decision in parents’ favor has been reversed. In fact, there are several cases where a private placement or reimbursement situation was won by parents at hearing and affirmed at the BSEA level. What we ARE saying is that when a decision IS reversed, most of the time it is a decision that was in favor of parents at the hearing officer level and most of the time (five out of six times) the case centered around a private placement scenario, which would have cost the school thousands of dollars.

Getting rid of the BSEA would not benefit me personally, other than the knowledge that cases would be decided fairly and that the playing ground would be level.

Why do I, personally, care about this “fox guarding the henhouse” scenario? It’s not about money.  I get paid, win or lose. I am lucky in that most of my clients are quality people who pay their legal bills.

Further, the BSEA website doesn’t list who the attorneys are in the cases, so I don’t get good or bad publicity in those cases, win or lose.

I care because I believe that a system should be just, and I believe that if a parent wins a case fair and square in a decision by a hearing officer who was actually THERE to hear the testimony, in person, and was able to judge the credibility of the witnesses, that that decision should not be overturned, at a loss of several thousand dollars, by a panel of people who are not required to have special expertise in the law or special education, are not attorneys and who operate in “secret” by conducting their review in a closed proceeding, even when the parties ASK to give oral arguments or attend the proceedings.

The hearing system should be enforcing the federal and state laws before it, not trying to create an appearance that all is well here in Indiana when that is clearly NOT the case.

In fact, forty percent of Indiana schools did not meet the Adequate Yearly Progress required by the No Child Left Behind Act for the most recent year for which statistics are available (2004). See Indiana Department of Education Website for information on which schools did and which schools did not. Go to http://www.doe.state.in.us and click on red/white/blue “No Child Left Behind Indiana” tab on right side of page to see the statistics on Indiana’s failing schools and press release on same http://www.doe.state.in.us/reed/newsr/2005/06-June/AYP060805.html.

 

The solution here is simple: Enact legislation to dismantle the BSEA and make Indiana a one-tier state, which would allow schools and families who disagree with hearing officer decisions to file their appeals in state or federal court, as is the method in many other states.

This would eliminate the cost, bias and egregious abuse of students’ due process rights that is occurring in Indiana at this time and will continue to occur until this change is made.

This move has no down side, except for those who have an interest in allowing the violations of special education students’ rights to continue, unfettered.
 
I have secured the permission of two families who have had their favorable hearing officer decisions reversed by the BSEA to reveal their contact information if any of you would like to confirm what I am saying.

L and K Benjamin
Parents of child in L.B. case cited above. Child is now in a private placement.

See case number 1502.05 on BSEA website http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/legal/appeals.html.



Jeff and Amy Duell
Parents of A.D. case cited above. Child is now in a private placement.

18 W. Joseph St.
Brazil, IN 47834
(812) 234-5889 Jeff at work
(812) 443-1872 home
(812) 249-3059 Amy
due4950@verizon.net

See case number 1373.04 on BSEA website http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/legal/appeals.html.



Paul and Heidi Kraft

Parents of child in J.K. case, cited above and formerly of Fort Wayne, Indiana, but moved away to secure appropriate services for their son with autism, in a public school in Arizona. He is now doing quite well.

890 W. Silver Hills St.
Tucson, AZ 85737
520-260-4506

paul.kraft@wellsfargo.com

See case number 1388.04 on BSEA website http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/legal/appeals.html


ANALYSIS OF BSEA DECISIONS FROM 1997-December 15, 2005

(Source: You can read full decisions upon which this information is based at

http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/legal/appeals.html.)

Name of Case

Date IHO decision
Case Number
Hearing Officer

Who won at hearing level

Who won BSEA appeal level

1. N.B. vs MSD of Martinsville

6/26/1997
921-96
Dennis Graft

Parents

Parents

2. E.L. vs MSD of Martinsville

4/4/1997
927-96
Julie Steck, Ph.,D 

School

School

3. M.S. vs Eagle-Union Community School Corporation

3/12/1997
941-97
Joseph McKinney

School

School

4. C.M.E. vs Duneland School Corporation and Porter County Education Interlocal

5/20/1997
945-97
Jerry L. Colglazier

Parents

Parents

5. W.S. vs Rockville Community School Corporation and Covered Bridge Special Education District

5/30/97
956-97
Curtis Leggett, Ph.,D

School

School

6. A.R. vs County School Of Brown County

9/11/1998
1058-98
Curtis Leggett, Ph.,D

School

Dismissed as Moot

7. A.S. vs Centerville-Abington Community Schools and East Central Special Services

5/18/1998
1012-98
(doesn’t say)

Partial for Both;
School Primarily 

Partial for Both;
School Primarily 

8. M.S. vs Eagle-Union Community School Corporation

6/8/1998
1007-98
(doesn’t say)

School

School

9. L.S. vs Nineveh-Hensley-Jackson United School Corp., Johnson County Special Programs

2/19/1998
1000-97
Joseph McKinney

Parents

Partial for Both;
Parents Primarily

10. D.E. vs Michigan City Area School Corporation

1/9/1998
990-97
Doesn’t say

School

School

11. L.M. vs Brownsburg Community School Corp., West Central Joint Services

2/17/1998
997-97
Dennis Graft

School

Dismissed as Untimely

12. N.U. and S.U. vs Fort Wayne Community Schools

11/10/1997
988-97
Dennis Graft

School

School

13. B.H. vs South Bend Community School Corporation

11/10/1997
977-97
Doesn’t say

School

School

14. S.M. vs Brown County School Corporation

8/10/1999
1077-98
Unknown 

School

Parents
(Note: School failed to respond to Pet. For Review)

15. E.H. vs School City of East Chicago

6/16/1999
1051-98 
Unknown

Parent

Partial for Both; Parent Primarily

16. J.H.L., II vs Lafayette School Corporation, Greater Lafayette Area Special Services Cooperative

3/29/1999
1071.98
Cynthia Stanley

School

School

17. L.N. vs Greater Clark County Schools and Greater Clark County Special Education Cooperative

1/11/1999
1039.98
Jerry Colglazier

Parents

School

18. A.S. vs. Richmond Community School Corporation

11/23/1998
1055.98
Jerry Colglazier

School

School

19. K.K. vs New Prairie United School District and South LaPorte County Special Education Cooperative and Indiana Department of Education

11/16/1998
1062-98
unknown

School

School

20. D.S. vs Lakeland School Corporation And Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative

11/10/1998
1063-98
unknown

School

School

21. L.W vs Valparaiso Community Schools and Porter County Education Interlocal

3/8/1999
1037-98
James Roth

School

School

22. J.S. vs Lafayette School Corporation, Greater Lafayette Area Special Services

10/9/2000
1163.00
Kristin Anderson

School

School

23.C.N. vs Fort Wayne Community Schools

8/7/2000
1167.00
Curtis Leggett, Ph., D

School

School

24. L.T. vs Indianapolis Public School

6/29/2000
1147.00
Unknown

School

School

25. D.C. vs West Central Indiana Special Education Services and Attica Consolidated School Corporation

4/5/2000
1128.99
Cynthia Stanley

Parents

Parents

26. L.C. vs Merrillville Community School Corp., And Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative

3/17/2000
1142.00
Dennis Graft

Partial for Both; Parents Primarily

Partial for Both; Parents Primarily

27. K.K. vs. South LaPorte County Special Education  Cooperative and New Prairie United School Corporation

2/28/2000
1116.99
Thomas Huberty

School

School

28. T.K. vs. Valparaiso Community Schools nd Porter County Educational Interlocal

1092.99

Partial for Both; Parents Primarily

Partial for Both; Parents Primarily

29. B.S. vs. Crown Point Community School Corp., and Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative

3/15/2000
1136.99
Jerry Colglazier

School

School

30. D.E. vs. Michigan City Area Schools

2/7/2000
1134.99
Joseph McKinney

School

School

31. J.T. vs. Vigo County School Corporation and Covered Bridge Special Education District

1/24/2000
1133.99
Curtis Leggett

Parents

Parents

32. R.T. vs. Duneland School Corporation and Porter County Educational Interlocal

1/19/2000
1119.99

Parents

School

33. T.M. vs. Northwestern School Corporation and Kokomo Area Special Education Cooperative

12/31/1999
1123.99 TM
Lon Woods

Parents

Parents

34. C.M. vs. Northwestern School Corporation and Kokomo Area Special Education Cooperative

12/31/1999
1123.99 CM
Lon Woods

Parents

Parents

35. D.R.W vs. Crown Point Community School Corporation and Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative

1/10/2000
1105.99
Jerry Colglazier

School

School

36. K.M. vs. Northern Community School Tipton County And Kokomo Area Special Education Cooperative

1238.01

School

School

37. J.B. vs. Mooresville Consolidated School Corp., West Central Joint Services

8/25/2001
1218.01
Thomas Huberty

School

School

38. S.M. vs. MSD Martinsville

6/13/2001
1198-01
Kristin Anderson

School

School

39. J.P. vs. West Clark Community Schools and Greater Clark County Special Education Services

6/25/2001
1211.01
Thomas Huberty

School

School

40. K.T. vs. Switzerland County School and Madison Area Special Services Unit

12/15/2000
1181-00

School

School

41. L.M. vs. Wesfield- Washington Schools And Hamilton-Madison-Boone Special Services

9/30/02
1302.02
Lon Woods

Partial for Both; School Primarily

School

42. R.B. vs. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation And Mishawaka-Penn-Harris-Madison Joint Services

2/8/2002
1259.01 & E1258.01
Kristin Anderson

School

School

43. N.H. vs. South Vermillion Community School Corp., And Covered Bridge Special Education District

6/24/2002
1262.01
Jerry Colglazier

Parents

Partial for Both; Parents Primarily

44. B.H. vs Franklin Community And Johnson County Special Programs

6/24/2002
1243.01
Kristin Anderson

Partial for Both; School Primarily

School

45. C.K. vs. Vigo County School Corporation and Covered Bridge Special Education District 

6/1/2002
1269.02
Jerry Colglazier

School

School

46. M.D. vs. Western Boone Community School Corp., And Boone-Clinton-Northwest Hendricks Joint Services

3/28/2002
E1261.02
Thomas Huberty

School

School

47. J.B. vs. MSD Lawrence Township

2/24/2002
1253.01-B
Curtis Leggett

Parents

Parents

48. N.B. vs. Lawrence Township

2/24/2002
1253.01-A
Curtis Leggett

Parents

Parents

49. L.W. vs. Valparaiso Community Schools And Porter County Education Interlocal

1/5/2002
1246.01

School

School

50. T.W. vs. Fort Wayne Community Schools

12/18/2001
1248.01
Thomas Huberty

School

School

51. T.G. vs. MSD Wabash County and Wabash-Miami Area Program

11/29/2001
1245.01
Lon Woods

Partial for Both; Parents Primarily

Partial for Both; Parents Primarily

52. D.B. vs. Merrillville Community Schools, and Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative

10/20/2001
1228.01
Jerry Colglazier

School

School

53. M.P. vs. Noblesville Community School Corp., And Hamilton-Boone-Madison Special Services Cooperative

9/6/2003
1342.03
Thomas Huberty

Partial for Both; School Primarily

Partial for Both; School Primarily

54. N.M. vs. MSD Warren Township

6/21/2003
1337.03
Jerry Colglazier

School

School

55. N.W. vs. Fayette County School Corporation and East Central Special Services

5/10/2003
1301.02
Kristin Anderson

Parents

Parents

56. B.W. vs. MSD Lawrence Township

3/29/2003
1322.02
Curtis Leggett

Parents

Parents

57. D.C. vs. Jay School School Corporation

2/22/2003
1319.02
Lon Woods

Partial for Both;Parents Primarily

School

58. R.B. vs. Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation and Bartholomew County Special Services

3/10/2003
1290.02
Jerry Cloglazier

School

School

59. C.H. vs. School City Of Hammond

2/14/2003
1296.02
Dennis Graft

Parent

Parent

60. M.W. vs. New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated Schools

1/31/2003
1307.02
Jerry Colglazier

School

School

61.B.W. vs. MSD Perry Township and RISE Special Services

2/3/2003
1306.02
Rolf Daniel

School

School

62.C.W. vs. Carmel Clay Schools and Hamilton-Boone-Madison Special Services Unit

1/13/2003
1315.02
Rolf Daniel

School

School

63. B.J.W. vs. Alexandria School Corporation

10/29/2002
1268.01
Joseph McKinney

School

School

64. R.L. vs. Richmond Community School Corporation

6/4/2004
1415.04
Joseph McKinney

Parents

Parents

65. M.K. vs. Brownsburg Community School Corporation and West Joint Services

5/24/2004
1402.04
Joseph McKinney

School

School

66. H.S. vs. West Lafayette Community School Corporation And Greater Lafayette Area Special Services

4/27/2004
1401.04
Thomas Huberty

Partial for Both; Parents Primarily

Partial for Both; Parents Primarily

67. J.K. vs. MSD Southwest Allen County Schools and Smith-Green West Allen Special Education Cooperative

3/5/2004
1388.04
Joseph McKinney

Parents

School

68. Z.F. vs. South Harrison Community School Corporation and Harrison County Special Ed. Coop

10/6/2003
1360.03
Thomas Huberty

Partial for Both; School Primarily

Partial for Both; School Primarily

69. N.M.P. vs. Valparaiso Community School Corporation and Porter County Education Interlocal

11/12/2003
1366.03
Dennis Graft

Parents

Parents

70. B.L. vs. Warsaw Community School Corporation and North Central Indiana Special Education Cooperative

1/28/2004
1390.04
Cynthia Stanley

School

School

71. H.D. vs. Plainfield Community School Corporation and West Central Joint Services

1/9/2004
1391.04
Joseph McKinney

School

School

72. N.S. vs. East Allen County Schools

1/5/2004
1392.04
Dennis Graft

School

School

73. C.B. vs. MSD Lawrence Township

8/12/2003
1363.03
Lon Woods

School

School

74. S.E. vs. Carmel Clay And Hamilton-Boone-Madison Special Services Cooperative

10/24/2003
1348.03
Dennis Graft

Dismissed as Moot

Dismissed as Moot

75. A.D. vs. Clay Community School

11/29/2003
1373.04
Lon Woods

Parents

School

76. B.B vs. Duneland School Corporation and Porter County Education Interlocal

10/6/2003
1335.03
Dennis Graft

School

School

77. W.J.C. vs. Duneland School Corporation and Porter County Education Interlocal

10/22/2004
1446.05
Lauranne Nordstrom

School

School

78. E.B. vs. Center Grove Community School Corporation and Johnson County Special Services

12/8/2004
1465.05
Cynthia Stanley

Parents

Parents

79. S.K. vs. School Town Of Munster, and West Lake Special Education Cooperative

3/7/2005
1461.05
Joseph McKinney

School

School

80. A.K. vs. MSD Mount Vernon and Posey Special Education Cooperative

11/20/2004
1437.04 
Laureanne Nordstrom

School primarily

School

81. A.H. vs. School Town Of Highland and Northwest Special Education Cooperative

9/14/2004
1440.04
Joseph McKinney

School

School

82. A.D. vs. Franklin Township School Cooperation and RISE Special Services

1447.05
Dennis Graft

Parents

Parents

83. W.J.C. vs. Duneland School Corp. and Porter County Education Interlocal

1446.05 
Laureanne Nordstrom

School

School

84. A.H., vs. School Town of Highland and Northwest Special Education Cooperative

1440.04
Joseph McKinney

School

School

85. A.K., vs. MSD MountVernon, and Posey Special Education Cooperative

1437.04
Laureanne Nordstrom

School

School

86. S.K., vs. School Town of Munster, and the West Lake Special Education Cooperative

1461.05
Joseph McKinney

School

School

87. E.B. vs. Center Grove Community School Corporation, and Johnson County Special Programs

1465.05
Cynthia Stanley

Parents

Parents

88. L.B. vs. Greater Clark County Schools and Clark County Special Education Cooperative

1502.05
Laureanne Nordstrom

Parents

School


Top of Page

Copyright © 2002 Dorene J. Philpot LawAll Rights Reserved.DisclaimerSitemapWeb Services by Narrow Gate Media