Why Choose Me?

My Successful Outcomes in Special Education Law Matters

At the Law Office of Mark W. Voigt, I will stand up for your child to make sure they receive the free, appropriate public education they ‘re entitled to in Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery Counties, PA, as well as throughout PA and NJ.


The chips don’t need to “fall where they may”. Your child needs an advocate to help steer the outcome of their matter. The attorney that you select DOES make a difference when it comes to the future of their education. You need to hire an attorney who will work for you with your child’s best interests in mind. Mr. Voigt’s robust practice founded on representing parents of special needs children in over 500 cases speaks for itself! Successful outcomes in matters simple or complex, coupled with a resume including authored written publications and numerous speaking engagements as a subject matter expert, help position your family for making the right hiring decision when it comes to your child’s education. Contact the Law Office of Mark W. Voigt or to view Mr. Voigt’s full resume, please tap or click below.

Click Here to Download My Resume

Recent Decisions

  • B.B. v. College Board (October 2019).

    B.B. is a high school junior who suffers from ADHD, anxiety and other disabilities. Despite this, when B.B. sought accommodations to take the SATs, the College Board denied him extended time or other modifications. Parent came to me, and I appealed the College Board’s decision. Eventually, the College Board relented and allowed B.B. 50% extended time, a small room to take the test and other accommodations. B.B. did very well on the SAT.

  • N.S. v. ________ School District (Montgomery County, December 2018).

    NS. is an elementary school student who suffers from severe ADHD and learning disabilities. Instead of helping NS, the District treated her as “uneducable” and regularly excluded her from class. Parents retained my services and I filed for due process. The hearing officer ordered the District to place NS in an excellent private school at District expense and awarded NS compensatory education worth approximately $30,000. The District also must reimburse Parents’ attorney’s fees.

  • BS v. ________ School District (Montgomery County, March 2018).

    BS is an elementary school-age child with behavioral issues and significant learning disabilities. When BS struggled with reading and writing, the District sent him to a self-contained class for “emotionally disturbed” children in another school building. On my recommendation, Parents placed BS in a private school with strong one-on-one reading and writing support. I then filed for due process. The hearing officer ordered the District to reimburse Parents’ tuition payments, provide daily transportation and pay my attorney’s fees.

Recent Settlements

  • N.S. v. _________ School District (Chester County, PA, December 2020).

    N.S. suffers from ADHD and a reading disability. When the District refused to help N.S., Parents spent thousands of dollars of private tutoring which kept N.S. afloat in school. Instead of individualized instruction, the District assigned N.S. to a one-size-fits-all “executive functioning lab,” which did not help N.S.. Parents retained my services. I worked out of settlement under which the District funded a large portion of N.S.’s private school tuition and transportation. N.S. is thriving in his new program and placement.

  • E.O. v. _________ School District (Berks County, PA, November 2020).

    E.O. has severe disabilities in reading, writing and math. Parents withdrew E.O. from the District when after refused to help him. They enrolled E.O. in a private school at their own expense. Eventually, Parents retained my services. I spearheaded a settlement under which the District provided E.O. with a $20,000.00 compensatory education fund. Parents used the proceeds to reimburse their private school tuition payments.

  • H.K. v. _________ School District (York County, PA, October 2020).

    H.K. suffers from emotional disturbance, reactive attachment disorder (RAD) and other disabilities. He could not pay attention in his one-size-fits-all, regular education classroom. He began cutting school and misbehaving at home. The District wanted to rid itself of H.K. by giving him a diploma based on a simple “graduation project.” Parents retained my services. I convinced the District to fund a large portion of H.K.’s placement at a residential treatment facility (RTF). There, he is receiving the comprehensive emotional/ educational supports and services he needs.

  • V.V. v. _________ School District (Montgomery County, PA, August 2020)

    V.V. suffers from dyslexia. Parents enrolled V.V. in cyber school after its special education director assured her it could appropriately educate V.V. Unfortunately, the cyber school placed V.V. in undifferentiated online classes with as many as 90 students. V.V. became school avoidant and made no significant progress. Parents retained my services. I orchestrated a settlement under which the cyber school paid for V.V.'s tuition in a private school for dyslexic children for 2½ years. V.V. is making excellent progress now.

  • C.B. v. _________ School District (Montgomery County, PA, July 2020).

    C.B. suffers from dyslexia and a learning disability in written expression. Rather than help him, the District treated C.B. as a "problem child" and routinely disciplined him. I filed for due process on C.B.'s behalf. The District settled the case by providing C.B. with a $40,000.00 compensatory education fund. It also agreed to reimburse Parents' attorney's fees.

  • S.W. v. _________ School District (Lancaster County, PA, May 2020).

    S.W. suffers from a vision impairment as well as severe learning disabilities. Nonetheless, the District placed S.W. in a large general education class where he failed to develop meaningful literacy skills. The other students bullied S.W. in class when S.W. could not answer the questions. Parents retained my services. I arranged an excellent settlement under which the District paid for approximately 90% of S.W.'s tuition at an excellent private school for two years.

  • M.B. v. _________ School District (Montgomery County, PA, April 2020).

    M.B. suffers from learning disabilities and a seizure disorder. He was failing many of his classes even though he had an average to above-average intelligence. The District did not want to offer M.B. any meaningful specially designed instruction. Parents retained my services. I negotiated settlement agreements each of the last three years which funded M.B.’s placement in a private school for students who learn differently, plus transportation.

  • ZR v. _________ School District (Luzerne County, January 2020)

    ZR suffers from ADHD and learning disabilities. Sadly, his overworked teachers routinely ignored his IEP. One teacher even punished ZR in front of the entire class when he failed to answer questions correctly. Instead of offering ZR the support he needed, the District warehoused him in a one-size-fits-all special education class. Parent retained my services. I negotiated a large compensatory education settlement for Parent, which she plans to use for ZR's much-needed tutoring after she moves to a different District. The District also paid Parent’s attorney's fees.

  • CP v. _________ School District (Bucks County November 2019)

    CP is a gifted child performing years above grade level. Unfortunately, in keeping with policy, the District refused to offer CP anything but a nondescript occasional pullout program. Parent retained my services. I convinced the District to skip CP an entire grade. CP is now thriving in a much more challenging educational environment.

  • SW v. _________ School District (Montgomery County, November 2019)

    SW suffers from significant learning disabilities. By the start of 6th grade, he was reading on just a 3rd grade level. Citing staffing and funding shortages, the District refused to offer SW any meaningful instruction in reading or math at his unique level. Parent retained my services. I convinced the District to fund SW’s placement at Woodlynde School for the 2019/20 and 2020/21 school years, including transportation and attorney’s fee reimbursement. SW is now thriving in Woodlynde’s child-centered environment.

Past Results

  • E.S. v. Nazareth Area School District

    In this case, the District wrongly billed the Department of Public Welfare $47,000 for Student's supposedly "free" special education services. DPW then erroneously sought to recover this money by imposing a lien against a small legal settlement Parents achieved for Student. Through tenacious advocacy, I resolved the matter and ensured Student kept the money he desperately needed.


    View PDF Here

  • N.G. v. ______________ School District

    The Hearing Officer in this case ordered the district to provide an appropriate program and placement to a mentally gifted but emotionally disturbed student. Parent also received $40,000 in a compensatory education trust.


    View PDF Here

  • R.S. v. Boyertown Area School District

    In this case, I helped the parents of a severely bullied special needs child obtain private school tuition reimbursement and transportation to and from New Hope Academy. Parents also received considerable compensatory education.


    View PDF Here

  • A.H. v. Boyertown Area School District

    Here, the hearing officer awarded parents private school tuition reimbursement so their severely dyslexic child could attend Delaware Valley Friends School.


    View PDF Here

  • K.P. v. _______________ School District

    In this case, the hearing officer awarded the parents of a child with Asperger's disorder a residential private school placement at Franklin Academy in Connecticut at District expense. He also gave parents substantial compensatory education.


    View PDF Here

  • A.K. v. ______________ School District

    Here, the hearing officer ordered the District to pay tuition reimbursement and a transportation subsidy. Parents used this award to help their special needs child attend the Academy in Manayunk, a private school for students with language based learning disorders.


    View PDF Here

  • A.T. v. Lake Lehman School District

    In this case, the hearing officer awarded the parents of a student with ADHD and Asperger's Disorder gain approximately 800 hours of compensatory education, which they used to fund a private school placement.


    View PDF Here

  • A.T. v. Lake Lehman School District - (Extended School Year)

    Here, I proved the District failed to offer the student appropriate extended school year (ESY) services during the summer of 2009.


    View PDF Here

  • J.S. v. Pennridge School District

    In this case, with my help, the Hearing Officer awarded a young adult with severe dyslexia sufficient compensatory education so he could attend a special school in New England at District expense.


    View PDF Here

  • D.L. v. Daniel Boone School District;

    In this case, I demonstrated that the district denied a gifted child an appropriate education. The hearing officer awarded him substantial compensatory education.

  • J.H. v. Exeter Township School District.

    Here, the district denied a child with a language-based learning disorder an appropriate education. I helped him gain approximately 200 hours of compensatory education as well as a much better future program and placement.

  • D.D. v. North Penn School District

    In this case, the District offered a gifted child only a cookie-cutter enrichment program. Through my advocacy, the hearing officer awarded him approximately 540 hours of compensatory education. She also ordered the district to provide substantial additional gifted services

  • D.R. v. North Penn School District

    Here, I represented a profoundly allergic/ asthmatic child. The hearing officer awarded him a better Section 504 services agreement, together with substantial compensatory education.

  • R.M. v. Kennett Consolidated School District

    In this case, the hearing officer awarded a gifted child substantial compensatory education. He then ordered the district to provide an individually-tailored GIEP to fit the child's unique needs.


    View PDF Here

  • M.G. v. Abington School District

    In this case, I represented a student with emotional disturbance whom the District wrongly treated as a mere troublemaker. Through my efforts, the hearing officer ordered the District to reimburse parents for his tuition at Vanguard Academy, plus compensatory education.


    View PDF Here

  • SA v. _________ School District (Dauphin County, August 2019)

    SA was doing very well in his placement at Delaware Valley Friends School (DVFS) at District expense. He was making up the ground he failed to cover due to years of District neglect. Unfortunately, to save money, the District refused to pay S.A,'s senior year tuition at DVFS. Through my advocacy, the District not only funded S.A.'s tuition in full but also reimbursed Parents' considerable transportation expenses.

  • MG v. _________ School District (Chester County, July 2019)

    MG suffers from profound learning disabilities. She was not making meaningful progress in her large classroom setting, with its one-size-fits-all instruction. Parents sought my services. I successfully negotiated a settlement under which the District paid MG's tuition and transportation at Centreville-Layton School, including attorney's fee reimbursement. MG is a much happier, successful child in her new placement.

  • AL v. _________ School District (York County June 2019)

    AL suffers from autism, a speech and language impairment and learning disabilities. Despite his profound special needs, the District refused to offer him anything but an insignificant §504 plan. Parents retained my services. I successfully negotiated a settlement under which the District paid AL's tuition at the Janus School (including one on one services) for several years. The District also reimbursed my legal fees.

  • MH v. ________ School District (Delaware County, May 2019)

    MH suffered from profound ADHD and learning disabilities. NG's teachers blamed NG for his own disabilities, demanding that he quote take responsibility" for his own education. District officials began targeting MG, even calling the police for minor acts of disobedience. Parents retain my services. I was able to engineer a settlement under which the district paid for students private placement at Centreville Layton School, including an expensive summer program. The District also reimburse Parents attorney's fees.

  • MB v. _________ School District (Montgomery County, April 2019)

    MB suffers from learning disabilities and a seizure disorder. Unfortunately, MB's teacher regularly subjected him to ridicule and improper restraint in class. Parents came to me. Through my advocacy, the District agreed to fund MB's private school placement (including transportation) at AIM Academy during the 2019/2010 and 2020/21 school years. MB is now thriving in his small class, small school environment.

  • IP v. __________ School District (Chester County March 2019)

    IP suffers from serious "double deficit dyslexia." She failed to make meaningful progress in the District for several years. Parent retain my services. I convinced the District to set aside a substantial trust fund so Parent could pay for IP's enrollment in a specialized private school, including transportation and legal fee reimbursement. IP is now doing much better than she ever did in the District.

  • KK v. ________ School District (Montgomery County, August 2018)

    KK suffered from dyslexia and was years behind in school. Parents investigated placing KK at DVFS but could not afford the tuition there. Parents then retained my services. I negotiated a settlement under which the District paid a substantial portion of KK's tuition for the next three school years, including legal fees. KK is doing very well at DVFS.

  • FC v. ________ School District (Chester County, September 2018)

    FC suffers from ADHD and significant learning disabilities. Even though he was functioning years below grade level, the District refused to offer him any meaningful specially designed instruction other than classroom modifications. I filed for due process. The District settled the case. It agreed to fund a high percentage of FC’s private school placement in a school for special needs children, including transportation. The District also agreed to reimburse Parents attorney’s fees.

  • SG v. _______ School District (Delaware County, September, 2018)

    SG suffers from ADHD, a speech and language impairment and other disabilities. Despite his average intelligence, he was reading well below his grade level. SG was suffered ongoing bullying because of his learning differences. Parents retained my services, and I demanded due process. The District agreed to place SG in a superb private school for children with similar special needs. It also promised to provide Parents with much needed transportation reimbursement and reimburse attorney’s fees.

  • SA v. _______ School District (Dauphin County, June, 2018)

    SA suffered from severe language-based learning disabilities and was years behind his educational peers. He had become school avoidant and suffered from low self-esteem. Parents retained my services. Instead of going to due process, the District settled the case. They agreed to pay for SA’s tuition, transportation and summer programming at an excellent private school on an ongoing basis. SA is now thriving in an appropriate educational environment.

  • OM v. _______ School District (Chester County, February 2018)

    OM suffers from ADHD, executive functioning deficits and learning disabilities. The District refused to offer him any specially designed instruction at public expense during the school day. Instead, OM’s teachers charged Parent up to $75 per hour to “tutor” OM after school. The District settled the matter. OM is now doing very well at Delaware Valley Friends School (DVFS) at District expense. The District also repaid Parents’ legal fees.

  • EB vs. _______ School District (Lackawanna County, January 2018)

    EB is a deaf child with significant learning disabilities. The District refused to provide EB with an interpreter so he could play sports, attend assemblies and the like. Parents retained my services. I successfully negotiated a private residential placement for EB at Katzenbach, New Jersey School for the Deaf, at District expense, including transportation and legal fees. EB is now thriving in Katzenbach’s deaf culture and making great progress in reading and writing.

  • LY v. ________ School District (Chester County, October 2017)

    LY is a high school student with ADHD, learning disabilities, anxiety and post-concussion syndrome. As the work got harder, LY’s stress level spiked and her grades dropped. The District blamed LY for her own struggles. Parents retained my services. I negotiated a placement for LY at Delaware Valley Friends School at District expense, including transportation and legal fee reimbursement. LY is doing very well at DVFS and is back on track to go to college.

  • MK v. ________ School District (Berks County, June 2017)

    MK is a middle school student with a very slow processing speed and depression. Her problems worsened when she started in the District’s enormous middle school. Her teachers treated her as lazy and indifferent. Parents retained my services. I convinced the District to pay 90% of MK’s annual tuition at Janus School, including transportation and one-on-one support. MK is now thriving in Janus’ small school environment, where she receives the educational and emotional support she needs.

  • Z.C. v. ________ School District (Montgomery County, April 2017)

    ZC  is a young child with autism, a history of seizures and other disabilities. Parents hired me after concluding the District could not meet his complex special needs. I successfully secured a private school placement at District expense. The District then refused to provide safe, reliable transportation for ZC and from his private school. I filed for due process. The hearing officer ordered the District to place a nurse on the van to administer anti-seizure medication if necessary. The District was also required to reimburse Parents’ legal fees.

  • JW v. ________ School District (Chester County, January 2017)

    JW is a highly intelligent but profoundly dyslexic high school student. For years, the District blamed his struggles at school on perceived laziness and bad attitude. Parents retained my services. On my recommendation, Parents enrolled JW at Delaware Valley Friends School. I filed for due process and secured tuition reimbursement for Parents. JW is thriving with the intensive, one-on-one support he receives at DVFS.

  • JB v. __________ School District (Montgomery County, December, 2016)

    JB suffers from a mood dysregulation disorder, autism and learning disabilities. He frequently acted out in class and ran away from school. Instead of helping JB, the District regularly sent him to the nurse’s office and let him sleep most of the day. Not surprisingly, JB did not make meaningful educational progress. Parent retained my services, and I filed for due process. I convinced the District to fund JB’s placement at Pathway, a small private school for children with autism and serious emotional disturbance. In this new placement, JB has calmed down and is finally making meaningful progress.

  • CJS v. _________ School District (Berks County, October 2016)

    CJS suffers from ADHD and significant academic underachievement. Despite this, the District refused to offer CJS any special education services. Parents retained my services. After just one meeting, the District agreed to offer CJS intensive, daily 1:1 Wilson Reading instruction and reimburse Parents’ attorney’s fees.

  • LB v. __________ School District (Dauphin County, August, 2016)

    LB is in 4th grade but can only read at a 1st grade level. Despite this, the District kept LB in a regular classroom and offered him no significant specially designed instruction. When LB could not keep up, his teacher regularly belittled him in front of the class. I demanded an IEP meeting right away. The District agreed to transfer LB to another elementary school and provide him with intensive 1:1 reading instruction. They also reimbursed Parent’s attorney’s fees and set up an educational trust fund for LB, totaling approximately $18,000.

  • JS v. __________ School District (Dauphin County, August, 2016)

    JS suffers from a hearing problem that makes her extremely sensitive to routine classroom sounds like coughing and foot tapping. She became anxious at school, and her grades plummeted. When the District refused to help, I filed for due process. Soon, the District agreed to buy JS a sound canceling device and pay for her hearing therapy. It made much needed classroom accommodations and reimbursed Parent’s attorney’s fees. JS is now doing much better in school.

  • CA v. __________ School District (York County, July, 2016)

    CA is mentally gifted but suffers from severe learning disabilities and a speech/language impairment. When the District offered him no meaningful services, his grades suffered and he became school avoidant. Parents sought my help. I was able to negotiate a District-paid, long-term private school placement for CA without resorting to due process. CA is doing much better than he ever did in the District and can look forward to going to college.

  • IP v. __________ School District (Chester County, January, 2016)

    Parent came to me because IP was struggling in reading and writing. I arranged an Independent Educational Evaluation which revealed she was years below grade level in both areas. When the District still would not help IP, I threatened due process. The District soon settled the case. It set up a large special education trust fund for IP and reimbursed Parent’s attorneys fees. The District is now offering IP Wilson Reading instruction. IP is doing much better in school.

  • G.W. v. ______ School District (Montgomery County, March, 2016).

    G.W. has dyslexia. Several years ago, I obtained an order compelling the District to reimburse GW’s tuition at Delaware Valley Friends School. Even though GW was excelling at DVFS, the District refused to keep funding his placement there. I filed for due process. The Hearing Officer ordered the District to continue paying GW’s private school tuition. He chastised the District for offering GW meaningless goals without baseline data just to win the case. GW now looks forward to graduating from DVFS and going to college.

  • J.C. v. ______ School District (Montgomery County, July, 2016)

    JC is a high school student who suffers from Tourette’s Syndrome, anxiety and learning disabilities. When Parents expressed concern over J.C’s failing grades, the District told them he wasn’t applying himself. I filed for due process. The Hearing Officer ordered the District to reimburse Parents for J.C.’s private placement at Delaware Valley Friends School. He is excelling at DVFS and anticipates going to college.

  • CJ v. ______ School District (Lancaster County, July, 2016)

    CJ is a 10th grade student who suffers from ADHD anxiety and a learning disability in math. When he attended school in the District, the other students routinely bullied him based on his assumed sexual orientation. Parents withdrew CJ from the District and placed him in an out of area charter school for students passionate about the arts. They then retained my services, and I filed for due process. The Hearing Officer ruled in Parents favor and ordered the District to reimburse Parents transportation expenses to and from the charter school, totaling approximately $25,000 per year. Eventually, I convinced the District to pay this amount to Parents every school year until CJ graduates.

  • M.H. v. __________ School District (November, 2014)

    M.H. suffers from profound dyslexia. As a results, he was significantly under achieving in school compared to his overall abilities. The District insisted on placing M.H. in a life skills program, to prepare him for a future in menial labor jobs. I filed a due process complaint. The Hearing Officer awarded M.H. tuition reimbursement so he can attend a specialized, college preparatory private school for students with language-based learning disabilities. I also obtained attorneys fee reimbursement from the District.

  • G.W. v. _______ School District (December, 2013)

    For several years, the District failed to address G.W.'s profound dyslexia.  When negotiations failed, I took the case to due process.  The Hearing Officer ordered the District to reimburse Parents for G.W.'s tuition, transportation, books, etc. so he could attend Delaware Valley Friends School.  I also won vital one-on-one reading services and attorney's fee reimbursement from the District.

  • M.K. v. _______ School District (April, 2014)

    M.K. suffers from profound language-based learning disabilities.  Parent came to me because M.K. was not making meaningful progress in the District's generic special education setting.  The District refused to take any action, so I took the case to due process.  The Hearing Officer ruled in Parents favor and ordered the District to provide compensatory education, tuition reimbursement and attorney's fee repayment.  I was then able to negotiate a favorable settlement under which the District agreed to pay multiple years of M.K.'s tuition at Hillside School, including transportation.

  • A.S. v. __________ School District (Lancaster County, July 2015)

    A.S. has from autism and a speech/language impairment. During her one year in the District, she received no meaningful support. Her speech remained unintelligible, her writing was at a beginner’s level and she was reading years below grade level. With my help, the District agreed to a substantial compensatory education award. Parents are using the money to pay for A.S.’ much needed one-on-one tutoring.

  • B.Y-H v.__________ School District (Lehigh County, June 2015)

    B.Y-H suffers from low functioning autism and ADHD. For many years, the District kept him in an undifferentiated autistic support class. Without appropriate supports, B.Y-H's educational, behavioral and self-help skills dropped. Parent enlisted my help. I convinced the District to pay for an out of District placement for B.Y-H, including transportation. I also obtained a considerable compensatory education trust fund for him. B.Y-H is now receiving the intensive, small group, skilled intervention he desperately needs.

  • W.F. v. _________ School District (Berks County, May 2015)

    W.F. suffered from long-term educational deprivation in the District. Due to his profound dyslexia, he was years behind in reading, writing and math. Through my intervention, the District agreed to set up a special needs trust for W.F. in the amount of $35,000 and reimburse Parents’ attorney's fees. W.F. is now receiving the one-on-one Orton-Gillingham reading instruction he desperately needs.

  • EK v. __________ School District (Delaware County, April, 2015)

    EK is a very intelligent but suffers from severe anxiety and depression. When he struggled in high school, the District blamed his “poor attitude.” EK was on the verge of dropping out when Parents sought my help. I helped EK gain admission into a small private school for students like EK. I then negotiated a settlement under which the District is paying EK’s tuition and providing transportation. EK expects to graduate soon and attend college.

  • L.H. v. __________ School District (Montgomery County, March, 2015)

    LH has above average educational abilities but suffers from behavioral issues. When she began exhibiting school avoidance, the District suspended her from school. Parents contacted me. I convinced the District to fund LH’s ongoing private placement at New Hope Academy, a small private school. L.H. is now receiving the emotional and behavioral support she needs to make meaningful progress.

  • D.L. v. __________ School District (Lancaster County, November, 2014)

    D.L. has very superior intellectual ability but struggled with depression and an autistic spectrum disorder. D.L. also suffered from bullying in school and stopped attending school. Rather than help D.L., the District declared him a truant and repeatedly suspended him from school. Parents retained my services. I convinced the District to pay for D.L. to attend a private boarding school for students with similar skills and disabilities. The District also reimbursed Parents for my attorney’s fees.

  • T.G. v. ___________ School District (Delaware) (November, 2014)

    As a result of my earlier intervention, the District paid for T.G. to attend a private school for autistic children during the 2012/13 and 2013/14 school year. T.G. did very well there. Unfortunately, to save money, the District insisted on placing T.G. in a substandard, in-District program for the 2014/15 school year. Through local counsel, I filed for due process. Just days before the first hearing, the District agreed to continue to fund 80% of T.G.’s private school tuition (plus full transportation) until he graduated. It also agreed to reimburse Parents for their attorney’s fees.

  • J.B. v. __________ School District (Dauphin County, August, 2014)

    J.B. suffers from severe learning disabilities. For years, his guardian complained to the District that J.B. could not perform even basic addition and subtraction. By seventh grade, J.B. was reading it just a third-grade level. Still, the District took no meaningful action. J.B.'s guardian retained my services. I convinced the District to set up a special needs trust so that JB could attend the Janus School, a private school geared to children with learning disabilities. J.B. now receives the intensive reading and math instruction he desperately needs. The District also reimbursed the guardian for my attorneys fees.

  • J.A. v. __________ School District (Schuylkill County, June, 2014)

    J.A. suffers from a severe speech/language impairment as well as significant emotional/ behavioral problems. Despite this, the District offered J.A. just 90 minutes of speech therapy per month. It never prepared a behavior plan to address his needs. Parents retained my services. With my efforts, the District set up a $20,000 special needs trust for J.A.'s benefit. J.A. may use the trust proceeds for any educational purpose until he reaches age 21 or graduates from high school. The District also reimbursed J.A.’s parents for my legal fees.

  • S.W. v. _______ School District (April,2013)

    S.W. suffers from Asperger's syndrome.  He suffered regular bullying in the District's very large junior high school.  Eventually, S.W. refused to go to school.  Rather than help S.W., the District instituted truancy proceedings against Parents.  I filed for due process.  The District settled the case.  It agreed to pay for S.W. to attend New Hope Academy, a small private school, where he receives the behavioral and educational help he needs in a small, nurturing setting.  The District also paid for S.W.'s transportation and reimbursed Parents for their attorney's fees.

  • J.A. v. _______ School District (March, 2013 and July, 2014)

    This is a Delaware case where I represented Parents with the assistance of local counsel.  J.A. suffers from severe learning disabilities as well as a visual impairment.  Unfortunately, the district only offered her occasional OT and speech therapy.  I filed for due process.  The District settled the case.  It paid for J.A. to attend Centreville School for the 2012/13 and 2013/14 school years, including reimbursement, Extended School Year services, transportation and Parents' attorneys fees.  J.A. made great progress and has returned to the District (with appropriate supports) for the 2014/15 school year.

  • T.G. v. _______ School District (January, 2013)

    This is another Delaware case in which I represented Parents with the help of local counsel.  T.G. suffers from high functioning autism, specific learning disabilities and other special education needs.  Unfortunately, the District only offered him a regular education placement.  It then "modified" his grades to make it seem that he was doing well.  I filed for due process.  The District settled the case.  It agreed to pay for T.G. to attend Vanguard School for the 2013/14 school year.  It also provided T.G. with 200 hours of compensatory education, reimbursed Parents for Extended School Year services and paid Parents' attorneys fees.

DISCLAIMER: I have provided zealous, efficient and effective representation to families of children with special needs for over 20 years. Here are some of the successful outcomes I have achieved for my clients. Please keep in mind that special education matters depend greatly on the facts of each individual case. The favorable results I achieved in the following decisions do not guarantee I will win the same results in your case. Please contact me to discuss the merits of your particular case.

Share by: