UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
POCONO MOUNTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT
Plaintiff V. : 3:15-CV-764 (JUDGE MARIANI) T.D., by and through his Parent S.D.L.
Defendant
ORDER ay 7 AND NOW, THIS 2 / DAY OF JULY, 2018, upon de novo review of Magistrate Judge Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 74), Plaintiff Pocono
Mountain School District (the “District’)’s Objections thereto (Doc. 78), the District's Motion
for Judgment on the Administrative Record, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 42), Defendant T.D.’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record (Doc. 54),
and all supporting and opposing documents, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The District’s Objections (Doc. 78) are SUSTAINED IN PART AND OVERRULED IN
PART for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion.
2. The R&R (Doc. 74) is ADOPTED IN PART AND OVERRULED IN PART for the
reasons set forth therein as well as those set forth in the accompanying
memorandum opinion, as set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 below.
eNotes “= 3. T.D.’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record (Doc. 54) is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
a. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion, T.D.’s
motion is GRANTED AS MODIFIED, such that the administrative hearing
Officer’s findings that (1) T.D. is disabled under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 20 U.S.C. § 794 (“Section 504”) and was denied a
free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) and (2) T.D. was entitled to
compensatory education per school day for a period of 26 school days are
AFFIRMED.
b. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion, T.D.’s
motion is GRANTED with respect to its request that this Court overturn the
hearing officer’s finding that T.D. was not disabled under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. The hearing
Officer’s conclusion that T.D. is not disabled under IDEA is T.D.’s VACATED.
c. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion, T.D.’s
motion is GRANTED AS MODIFIED, such that the administrative hearing
Officer's award of tuition reimbursement for the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school
years is AFFIRMED on the basis of statutory provisions under IDEA, rather
than on the basis of a deliberate indifference finding under Section 504. d. For the reasons set forth in the R&R and this Court’s accompanying
memorandum opinion, T.D.’s motion is DENIED in all other respects.
4, The District's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, or in the
Alternative, for Summary Judgment (Doc. 42) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART as follows:
a. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion, the
District's motion is GRANTED with respect to its request that this Court
vacate the hearing officer's finding that the District acted with deliberate
indifference under Section 504. The hearing officer's conclusion that the
District acted with deliberate indifference towards T.D. under Section 504 is
VACATED.
b. For the reasons set forth in the R&R and this Court's accompanying
memorandum opinion, the District's motion is DENIED in all other respects.
5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
Ropert D. Mariant United States District Judge