LAUSD Must Provide Second Daily Stander Session for Quadriplegic Student

A 19-year-old student with cerebral palsy, severe scoliosis, and multiple disabilities attended Los Angeles Unified School District, where her IEP provided only one session per day in her standing frame. Her parent argued that a second daily stander session was medically necessary and educationally required. The ALJ agreed, finding that keeping Student in her wheelchair for most of an 8-plus-hour school day caused active harm to her bones, lungs, and gastrointestinal system, and that denying a second stander session was a denial of FAPE.

What Happened

Student was a 19-year-old young woman with cerebral palsy, severe scoliosis, intellectual disability, speech and language impairment, and visual impairment. She was a quadriplegic who depended entirely on others for mobility and personal care. The only equipment that could hold her upright was a mechanical stander — a device that tilts a person from lying flat to a near-standing position using straps and supports. Student spent her school day at Reseda High School, arriving by bus at 7:35 a.m. and returning home at 3:45 p.m. — more than eight hours in total. During that time, she was placed in her stander for one hour in the morning and spent two hours per day on a changing table for toileting. The rest of her day was spent seated in her wheelchair.

Parent had long advocated for Student to be placed in her stander twice per day at school. The District's December 2011 IEP offered only one session. After Parent filed a due process complaint, the parties reached a settlement agreement in February 2012 requiring the District to hold an amendment IEP to discuss a second stander session. At the March 12, 2012 amendment IEP, the District again offered only one stander session per day, relying on a 1992 physical therapy journal article and the argument that Student's schedule was too full to accommodate a second session. Parent disagreed and filed a new due process complaint. This decision covers the period from March 1, 2012 through the end of the 2011–2012 school year.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that the District denied Student a FAPE by offering only one stander session per day. The key evidence came from Student's pediatric orthopedist, Dr. Kay, who had treated Student for 10 years and examined approximately 36,000 children with disabilities over his career. He testified that Student's bones, lungs, gastrointestinal system, and psychological well-being would all be negatively affected by remaining in a wheelchair for most of an eight-hour school day with only one standing session. The ALJ found this testimony more persuasive than the District's reliance on a 20-year-old journal article — and noted that the article itself actually supported more standing time, recommending two to three sessions daily to control contractures and improve bone density.

The ALJ rejected each of the District's defenses. The District argued there was no academic benefit to a second stander session — but the ALJ found that Student's program was almost entirely functional (working on communicating basic needs and understanding the concept of "one"), and that her communication switch work, which she performed while in the stander, was directly tied to her IEP goals. The District argued Student's schedule was too full — but the ALJ found that the two hours per day spent on the changing table left ample time for a second session. The District argued it lacked staff — but the ALJ made clear that staffing limitations do not excuse a district from providing FAPE. The District also argued it lacked a second stander — but the ALJ noted that the second session could take place in the same classroom using the same stander already present.

What Was Ordered

The District was ordered to amend Student's March 12, 2012 IEP to provide two stander sessions per day — one in the morning and one in the afternoon.
The total standing time across both sessions was not to exceed one hour (redistributed, not added to the existing hour).
The District was not required to purchase an additional stander, as the second session could be conducted in Student's special day class.

Why This Matters for Parents

Medical needs that affect access to education are "related services" under IDEA. A school district cannot limit supports to only those tied to academic performance in the traditional sense. When a student's medical condition deteriorates because of how their school day is structured, that is a FAPE issue — not just a medical one. If your child's health is worsening because the school day isn't accommodating their physical needs, document it and bring in your child's doctor.
Your child's doctor's testimony can be decisive. The ALJ gave significant weight to the pediatric orthopedist's opinion over the District's physical therapist. If you have a specialist who knows your child well and can speak to how the school program affects their health, ask them to participate in IEP meetings or provide written reports. A treating physician's long-term knowledge of a patient is powerful evidence.
Districts cannot use staffing or scheduling problems to deny FAPE. The ALJ explicitly stated that the IDEA does not excuse school districts from providing required services based on staff availability or a busy schedule. If a district tells you it can't provide a service because it doesn't have enough staff, that reason alone is legally insufficient.
Look carefully at how your child's time is actually spent during the school day. The ALJ was troubled that Student spent two hours a day on a changing table — time that appeared to benefit staff convenience more than Student. Requesting a detailed activity log for your child's school day can reveal whether their time is being used in ways that truly serve their educational needs.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

The District was ordered to amend Student's March 12, 2012 IEP to provide two stander sessions per day — one in the morning and one in the afternoon.
The total standing time across both sessions was not to exceed one hour (redistributed, not added to the existing hour).
The District was not required to purchase an additional stander, as the second session could be conducted in Student's special day class.

Why This Matters for Parents

Medical needs that affect access to education are "related services" under IDEA. A school district cannot limit supports to only those tied to academic performance in the traditional sense. When a student's medical condition deteriorates because of how their school day is structured, that is a FAPE issue — not just a medical one. If your child's health is worsening because the school day isn't accommodating their physical needs, document it and bring in your child's doctor.
Your child's doctor's testimony can be decisive. The ALJ gave significant weight to the pediatric orthopedist's opinion over the District's physical therapist. If you have a specialist who knows your child well and can speak to how the school program affects their health, ask them to participate in IEP meetings or provide written reports. A treating physician's long-term knowledge of a patient is powerful evidence.
Districts cannot use staffing or scheduling problems to deny FAPE. The ALJ explicitly stated that the IDEA does not excuse school districts from providing required services based on staff availability or a busy schedule. If a district tells you it can't provide a service because it doesn't have enough staff, that reason alone is legally insufficient.
Look carefully at how your child's time is actually spent during the school day. The ALJ was troubled that Student spent two hours a day on a changing table — time that appeared to benefit staff convenience more than Student. Requesting a detailed activity log for your child's school day can reveal whether their time is being used in ways that truly serve their educational needs.