Skip to Main Content 
Home Arrow Icon Laws & Regulations Arrow Icon Appeal Decisions Arrow Icon Appeal Decisions -- Search & Display

Appeal Decisions

Search

Keyword    Type   
1 Matching Record
If you have questions contact Nicole Proesch, legal counsel for the Department and the State Board,
at 515-281-8661 or nicole.proesch@iowa.gov.
BOOK: 17 
DECISION: 281 
MONTH-YEAR: September - 1999
IN RE: In re Matthew B.W.
APPELLANT: James W.
APPELLEE: Ft. Madison CSD & AEA 16
KEYWORDS: Special Education
FULL TEXT: https://www.educateiowa.gov/documents/appeal-decisions/2013/03/book-17-decision-281 
DETAILS: Matthew is a 17-year-old living with his mother in Ft. Madison.  His parents are divorced and Matthew has been involved with special education services since he was 4 years old.  He was dianosed with a language processing deficit, yee and motor tracking problems, short attention span and distractability.  The record suggests that the initial decline in Matthews condition began around January 1993 when his father had "an acute decompensation in his condition" and became violent.  Matthew developed "significant anxiety problems including hypervigilance, intrusive thoughts, and a sense of loss of control." 
  Matthews conditions continued to deteriorate and by September 1995 he was increasingly withdrawn and unable to formulate answers or speak clearly.  Matthew was unable to function within the school setting and stopped attending school.  He was diagnosed with major depressive disorders. 
  Matthew returned to the district in May 1996.  During the 1996-97 school year, Matthew attended a military school in Missouri due to "continued dysfunction between family members." It is clear from the official school record and testimony that the primary purpose of hospitalizations was to address an underlying medical crisis.
  The services provided to Matthew B.W. were medical services and are not reimbursable as special education or related services.
OUTCOMES: That the appellees have prevailed in the substantive issue presented in this case; the argument that the issue is barred by the statute of limitations and equitable considerations will not be addressed.