	5th Circuit Case Law
	7th Circuit Decisions
	ABA via Insurance
	Accommodations
	Advocates
	Altering Records
	Assistive Technology
	Autism Supplement
	Basic Definitions
	Being An Advocate
	BSEA
	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
	My Calling
	Neuropsych vs. Psychoeducational
	New Regulations
	OCR Complaints
	Open Records
	Options
	Overview for Attorneys
	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
	Top 10 List for Judges
	Top 10 Tips for Parents
	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”:

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.
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:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

- #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