Wrightslaw l No Child Left Behind l IDEA 2004 l Fetaweb l Yellow Pages for Kids l Harbor House Law Press
 Home > Articles > Ashbury v. St Louis special education law settlement agreement


The Special Ed Advocate
It's Unique ... and Free!

Enter your email address below:

 

2014 - 2015 Training Programs


Aug 21 - Norfolk, VA

Oct 23 - Wilton, CT

Oct 25 - Olympia, WA

Oct 30 - Phoenix, AZ

Nov 6 - McAllen, TX

Nov 21 - Temecula, CA

Dec 4 - OKC, OK

Full Schedule

Be a Hero ...

 Jason at Ft. Benning
... to a Hero
Learn more

Wrightslaw

Home
Topics from A-Z
Free Newsletter
Seminars & Training
Consultations
Yellow Pages for Kids
Press Room
FAQs
Sitemap

Books & Training

Wrightslaw Books & DVDs
Wrightslaw Storesecure store lock
  Advocate's Store
  Student Bookstore
  Exam Copies
Training Center
Bulk Discounts
New! Military Discounts
Mail & Fax Orders

Advocacy Library

Articles
Doing Your Homework
Ask the Advocate
FAQs
Newsletter Archives
Summer School Series
Success Stories
Tips

Law Library

Articles
Caselaw
IDEA 2004
No Child Left Behind
McKinney-Vento Homeless
FERPA
Section 504
Fed Court Complaints

Topics

Advocacy
ADD/ADHD
Allergy/Anaphylaxis
Assistive Technology
Autism Spectrum
Behavior & Discipline
Bullying
College/Continuing Ed
Damages
Discrimination
Due Process
Early Intervention (Part C)
Eligibility
ESY
Evaluations
FAPE
Flyers
Future Planning
Harassment
High-Stakes Tests
Homeless Children
IDEA 2004
Identification & Child Find
IEPs
ISEA
Juvenile Justice
Law School & Clinics
Letters & Paper Trails
LRE/Inclusion
Mediation
Military / DOD
No Child Left Behind
NCLB Directories
NCLB Law & Regs
Parental Protections
PE and Adapted PE
Privacy & Records
Procedural Safeguards
Progress Monitoring
Reading
Related Services
Research Based Instruction
Response to Intervention (RTI)
Restraints/Abuse
Retention
Retaliation
School Report Cards
Section 504
Self-Advocacy
Teachers & Principals
Transition
Twice Exceptional (2e)
VA Special Education

Resources & Directories

Advocate's Bookstore
Advocacy Resources
Directories
  Disability Groups
  International
  State DOEs
  State PTIs
Free Flyers
Free Pubs
Free Newsletters
Legal & Advocacy
Glossaries
   Legal Terms
   Assessment Terms
Best School Websites

 

BEFORE THE THREE PERSON DUE PROCESS HEARING PANEL
EMPOWERED BY THE MISSOURI STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
 

DANIEL ASBURY, et al.,

Petitioners

vs.

SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OF
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, et al.,

Respondents

SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND
RESPONDENT SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY

The parties to this agreement are Petitioners Michael Asbury and Kathryn Asbury, parents of Daniel Asbury, a minor (hereafter referred to as the Asburys) and the Special School District of St. Louis County (hereafter referred to as the SSD).

1.    Premises.

Daniel Asbury is a student receiving services from the SSD. He is a child with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§1400 et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794, and Missouri special education laws, Chapter 162 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri. The Asburys filed a Complaint and Request for Due Process Hearing against the SSD, the Maplewood-Richmond Heights School District (hereafter referred to as MRH), and the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. This agreement is intended to resolve all of the Asburys' existing complaints against the SSD.

2.    ABA/DTT/Lovaas Educational Program for Daniel

a.     The Asburys and the SSD agree that Daniel will continue to receive the ABA/DTT/Lovaas educational program that the Asburys have been providing for him in their home, at their expense. The Asburys will continue to have control over and financial responsibility for that program. As part of that program, the SSD agrees that its personnel working with Daniel, including teachers, occupational therapists, and speech/language pathologists, will consult with the Center for Autism and Related Disorders (CARD) or a similar organization retained by the Asburys, for the purpose of implementing Danielís ABA/DTT/Lovaas program across environments.

b.     Starting with the beginning of the 1998-1999 school year, and for as long as the Asburys and their consultants deem it beneficial for Daniel, including throughout the 1998-1999 school year, the Asburys will provide an aide (or shadow) at school for Daniel. The aide will be an individual who has been trained in the ABA/DTT/Lovaas method of instruction and who may also work as a trainer with Daniel at home. The aide will be selected and paid by the Asburys and will be allowed to work with Daniel and his teachers all of the time that Daniel is in school as part of his educational program (including on the school bus, on field trips, and on other school activities), subject to the provisions of subparagraph e, below.

c.     Danielís IEP for the 1998-1999 school year shall include the following statement under Present Levels of Performance, Current interventions: "Parents are providing Daniel with ABA/DTT/Lovaas training at home, with consultations from CARD and an ABA/DTT/Lovaas trained aide (shadow) at school, at their own expense."

d.     SSD personnel will cooperate with the Asburys and the aide in all reasonable respects so that the aide can fulfill Danielís need for an ABA/DTT/Lovaas trained 1-1 integration aide to provide continuity between Daniel'sí home program and his time at school and to facilitate Danielís integration with his peers in the regular school setting.

e.     The provisions of the Settlement and Release Agreement Between Petitioners and Respondent MRH with respect to the terms and conditions for conduct of the aide will be followed by the Asburys and the SSD as part of this agreement.

3.    Payments to the Asburys

a.     The SSD shall pay to the Asburys the sum of $60,000.00, within 30 days of the signing of this agreement. Of that payment, $50,000.00 is for the compromise of the claims made by the Asburys for the personal injuries alleged by the Asburys to have been suffered by Daniel to date and $10,000.00 is reimbursement to the Asburys for the ABA/DTT/Lovaas educational program previously obtained by the Asburys for Daniel.

b.     The District shall pay to the Asburys the sum of $20,000.00 in January 1999 and an additional $20,000.00 in May 1999. With respect to each of these payments, $15,000.00 is for the compromise of the claims made by the Asburys for Danielís future personal injuries as alleged by the Asburys and $5,000.00 is for the Asburys to use for the ABA/DTT/Lovaas educational program for Daniel in the future, as described in paragraph 2, above, including the consultations and the aide.

c.     The SSD specifically denies that Daniel suffered any personal injury. However, the parties to this agreement agree that the personal injuries alleged that Daniel is to have suffered are physical in nature as they relate to Daniel's physiologic and neurologic impairment. The SSD shall not issue a 1099 form relating to any of these payments.

4.    Payment for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.

The SSD shall pay to the Asburys Ďattorneys, Mary Jane White and Kenneth M. Chackes, for the attorneys' fees and expenses reasonably incurred in their representation of the Asburys in this matter, in a sum not to exceed $33,000.00, within 30 days of the presentation of evidence of the amount of time spent and expenses incurred. SSD shall pay the attorneys' fees and expenses directly to said attorneys and it shall issue 1099 forms, if any, reflecting payment only to said attorneys. The Asburys expressly acknowledge that the SSD shall not reimburse the Asburys, either directly or indirectly to their attorneys, for any attorneys' fees and/or expenses for which they have previously received reimbursement from MRH.

5.    Mutual Release.

The Asburys jointly and severally release and waive any and all claims against the SSD, its Board of Education, its administration and employees, under the IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Missouri state special education statutes, with respect to the provision of a free appropriate public education for Daniel and for any and all claims for personal injuries, including but not limited to physical injuries, allegedly suffered by Daniel, up to and including the date of this agreement. The District, including its agents and employees, release the Asburys, Including their agents, representatives, and heirs, from any and all claims they have or may have against them arising out of any facts or events relating to the IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Missouri state special education statutes that occurred up to and including the date of this agreement.

6.    Dismissal.

Upon execution of this agreement the Asburys will promptly notify the Due Process Hearing Panel that the Asburys are limiting their claims against the SSD with prejudice.

7. Denial of Wrongdoing.

The SSD denies any and all alleged wrongdoing in this matter.


MICHAEL ASBURY
KATHRYN ASBURY
SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
OF ST LOUIS COUNTY
DATE - 5/22/98



Note:  The parents were represented by Mary Jane White of Iowa (email address is mjwhite-sbtek.net) and Kenneth Chackes of St. Louis, Missouri.

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon The Special Ed Advocate: It's Free!

 

Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Edition, by Pam and Pete Wright
About the Book

Wrightslaw: All About IEPs
About the Book

Wrightslaw: All About Tests and Assessments
About the Book

Surviving Due Process: Stephen Jeffers v. School Board
About the DVD Video

 

Copyright © 1998-2014, Peter W. D. Wright and Pamela Darr Wright. All rights reserved.

Contact Us | Press Mission l Our Awards l Privacy Policy l Disclaimer l Site Map