Administrative Courts and Other Proceedings

E.A. b/n/f L. and P.A.

v.

Conroe Independent School District (ISD)

Texas Education Agency (TEA)

Special Education Due Process Hearing (DPH)

Special Education Advocate David Beinke and Attorney Martin Cirkiel argued that the school failed to consider E.A.'s unique educational needs when developing his Individualized Educational Plan (IEP). In frustration due to the school's failures, his parents withdrew him and sent E.A. child to a private school. They filed a DPH claiming they deserved reimbursement for the school's failure. The Hearing Officer agreed and ordered Conroe ISD to reimburse the family for these outstanding costs, as well as provide other relief.

G.B. b/n/f Mr. & Mrs. B.

v.

Sacred Heart Catholic School

Dept. of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR)

The firm represented a young man who had a significant propensity to an immunity issue.  His physician determined that if G. received any immunizations it would likely trigger, in him, a negative response, triggering major auto-immune issues.  Because he could not be immunized, the religious school discharged him from the program.  With the support of the family, the firm learned that the school received financial benefit from the United States Department of Agriculture and thus was required to follow the requisites of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  After filing a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights, the religious school relented in their position and offered re-admission to the school.

C.C. b/n/f Mr. & Mrs. C.

v.

Austin Independent School District

Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) and

Juveline Justice Court

C.C. was an emotionally disturbed young man who got in severe trouble at school, triggering an adjudication in the Juvenile Justice System.  The firm represented him at all school related ARD Committee Meetings and Manifestation Hearings, as well as throughout the criminal proceedings.  After a year and half C.C. was ready to re-enter the public school system.  Through the efforts of this young man, his family and Mr. Cirkiel, the charges were dismissed.

A.E. b/n/f Major J.E  & Mrs E.

v.

Katy Independent School District

TEA Special Education DPH

The children were receiving specialized services for Autism and their own emotional and educational needs, by and through the Hawaii State Educational Agency, when the Major and family was stationed there.  When ordered State-side to Texas, he was not able to find educational services commensurate with the IEP that each child had received in Hawaii.  The firm along with David Beinke, represented this incredible family, filing a due process against both the school district and the TEA, for not providing or paying for such necessary services.  The Hearing Officer dismissed the claim against TEA, finding he had no jurisdiction over such a claim. Fortunately the case against the school settled for a value so that the children could attend a private school, where necessary services would be provided.

J.K. b/n/f Mr. & Mrs K. v. Georgetown ISD

and

B.M. b/n/f Mr. & Mrs. M. v. GISD

TEA Special Education DPH

Both students were unable to attend school due to a severe allergic reaction to untreated mold in the school. As such, each were provided home-bound services and no more than a few hours per week, and eventually graduated high school, each moving on to college.  Among numerous violations of IDEA, Beinke and Cirkiel argued that the school had a duty to provide a regular educational day and educational services to the young men, via a webcamera, or similar assistive technology device, as this was their “least restrictive environment.”  The Hearing Officer disagreed, upholding the school’s claim that the provision of educational services through a webcamera, while helpful, was not legally necessary to provide FAPE.  We disagreed and appealed the case to federal district court, where the Judge, while sympathetic to our argument, sustained the Hearing Officer decision.

H.L. b/n/f Mrs. L.

v.

Richardson Independent School District

TEA Special Education DPH

H., was a male student with a severe cognitive impairment.  As part of his transition plan he was to go to and from school and work by public transportation.  He suffered significant physical injuries and neurological damages. The firm brought forth a claim pursuant to IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Acts, asking for damages. This case settled during mediation.

D.M. b/n/f v. Mr. & Mrs. M.

v.

Round Rock Independent School District

TEA Special Education DPH

The firm represented a young man with an emotional disability who was incessantly harassed and bullied by other children, while at school.  His parents complained but the school did nothing.  One day a few boys befriended him and tricked him into pulling the fire alarm.  The parents met with school officials requesting that there son not be required to return to the school, and with the same other boys, where the incident occurred. They disagreed and the very next day, the same boys befriended D. again and tricked him into starting a small fire on a couch.  He was detained in a juvenile facility and then later required significant residential treatment care.  In the civil administrative proceeding, the parent filed a due process claim against the school, for violations of D.’s rights pursuant to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act and for reimbursement of significant out-of-pocket expenses.  This case settled during mediation. 

S.P. b/n/f Mr. & Mrs. P.

v.

Conroe Independent School District

TEA Special Education DPH

S., was a female student with special needs who was sexually assaulted by a school police officer. The firm, with Beinke as Advocate and Cirkiel as Co-Counsel with Michael Josephson, Esq. of the Law Firm of Fibich, Hampton & Leebron, L.L.P., in Houston, Texas brought forth claims pursuant to IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Acts. This case settled during negotiation for services and other value.       

T.S. b/n/f Mr. & Mrs. S.

v.

Seguin Independent School District

TEA Special Education DPH

T. was a very young male student with Autism who was physically and emotionally abused by his special education teacher. He experienced significant regression and severe mental anguish.  The firm, with Mike Kinser as primary Advocate, brought forth claims pursuant to IDEA and  Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, requesting damages.  This case settled during mediation.