No Med, No Ed?

Abstract

IN APRIL 1997, a first-grade teacher in Millbrook, New York, a small town east of Poughkeepsie, filled out an ADHD rating form that reflected her suspicion that one of her students, Michael W., had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The school forwarded the report to Michael's pediatrician, who rendered a diagnosis of ADHD and prescribed Ritalin. (1) During the next two years, Michael began to experience adverse effects from the medication, causing the doctor to change the prescription to Dexedrine. When Michael continued to have adverse effects, the district's school psychologist suggested to Michael's parents that they send him to a psychiatrist. They did, and the psychiatrist diagnosed Michael with social anxiety disorder, for which she prescribed Paxil in addition to Dexedrine. Paxil is not approved for use with children. Soon thereafter, Michael experienced sleep problems, including insomnia, and frenzied, anxious behavior. Within a month, the psychiatrist discontinued the Paxil. Then Michael began complaining of hearing voices in his head. On December 6, the principal at Michael's school and the school psychologist recommended to the parents that they continue having the psychiatrist treat Michael to establish the proper medication or to have him hospitalized. The psychiatrist advised the parents that, while Michael's medication was being adjusted, it would be appropriate to hospitalize him rather than have him continue to experience severe behavioral episodes at school. On December 16, contrary to this advice, Michael's parents took him off all medication. In January 2000, the school officials informed the parents that the district had nothing more to offer Michael and that a different placement was probably the best solution. However, the parents rejected the district's proposed special education placement in a separate setting. The parties agreed to homebound placement. (2) On January 28, the director of pupil personnel services informed Michael's family that the district would no longer support the homebound placement because there was no medical basis for it. The parents still rejected the idea of returning Michael to a separate special education room at school, and the district contacted Child Protective Services, which charged the parents with educational and medical neglect. Moreover, the administrator subsequently demanded that Michael undergo an immediate psychiatric evaluation. In March 2000, the psychiatric evaluation report was issued, concluding that Paxil had induced the psychotic disorder. The report also concluded that Michael did not have ADHD and thus the physicians should not have prescribed any of the psychotropic drugs. In June 2001, Michael's parents requested a due process hearing to challenge the appropriateness of the district's placement for him. In September 2001, at the conclusion of the hearing, the parents signed a settlement agreement with the school district, including a provision releasing the district from liability. In September 2002, the parents filed suit in federal court against the district and various school officials, the pediatrician and the psychiatrist, and the drug company that manufactures Paxil. The claims against the district defendants were 14th Amendment substantive due process and negligence. The district defendants moved for summary judgment based on the signed release. On 2 July 2003, the court denied the motion based on genuine issues of material fact concerning the scope of the release. In the meantime, Michael's mother, who founded a website organization for label and drug free education, (3) secured national attention for his case. (4) On 6 January 2006, the district defendants filed a motion for dismissal. On 19 April 2006, the court issued its decision, granting the motion to dismiss the parents' case against the district and its officials. (5) For the civil rights claim based on 14th Amendment liberty, the court noted the remarkable similarity to a suit brought by the same plaintiff 's counsel in another federal district court, which had dismissed that case as yet another unfortunate example of scattershot litigation. …