Opinion ID: 6983256
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: MMSEA Claim

Text: We consider next the challenge under the applicable Michigan statute. Michigan has chosen to enhance IDEA’S requirements, heretofore discussed, by requiring that an IEP be “designed to develop the maximum potential” of the handicapped child. MCLA §§ 380.1701(a), 380.1711(1)(a) and 380.1751(1). “The term ‘maximum potential’ has not been well defined in Michigan law. Further, the standard may be more precatory than mandatory; it does not necessarily require the best education possible.” Brimmer v. Traverse City Area Public Schools, 872 F.Supp. 447, 454 (W.D.Mich.1994). Michigan standards, moreover, do not require “a model education, adopting the most sophisticated pedagogical methods without fiscal or geographic constraints.... ” Barwacz v. Mich. Dept. of Educ., 674 F.Supp. 1296, 1302 (W.D.Mich.1987). Plaintiffs concede as much, and that the interpretation of the standard is left in the reasonable discretion of the state officials dependent upon the circumstances of the case. See Brimmer, supra, at 454-55. We have already concluded that the procedural requirements of both the federal and state acts were met by AAPS with regard to the MET and the formulation of the IEP. Plaintiffs are not entitled to prescribe or require a specific desired methodology under these circumstances. See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 208, 102 S.Ct. 3034; Lachman v. Illinois State Board of Education, 852 F.2d 290, 297 (7th Cir.1988); Roland M. v. Concord School Committee, 910 F.2d 983, 993 (1st Cir.1990); Tucker, 136 F.3d at 505; Barnett by Barnett v. Fairfax County School Bd., 927 F.2d 146, 152 (4th Cir.1991). Plaintiffs argue that the opinions of defendant’s experts should be given little weight because they were not as familiar with Marty, with autism, or with DTT as was Dr. Meinhold. We disagree with this rationale. Each expert was sufficiently familiar with the unique facts and circumstances of this controversy to offer an opinion which was evaluated administratively and by the magistrate judge and district judge. The fact that the SHRO did not give unqualified approval to Dr. Meinhold’s opinion, given her predisposition toward Lovaas’ approach as the only acceptable methodology to treat autism of this type, does not render the SHRO’s decision erroneous nor the LHO’s conclusion correct. We find no error in the magistrate judge’s decision that “there is simply no consensus within the educational or medical communities on the most effective way to treat autism in preprimary age children.” As to whether the IEP “was designed to develop the maximum potential” of Marty, we are persuaded, as were the SHRO, the magistrate judge, and the district judge, all located in Michigan, that the IEP met this criteria. A Michigan court has stated in this regard, dealing with the Michigan standard: [The Michigan statute] does not define the phrase “maximum potential.” We believe that there is some limitation on what kind of program is required. When two competing educational programs which meet the child’s requirements are evaluated, the needs of the handicapped child should be balanced with the needs of the state to allocate scarce funds among as many handicapped children as possible ... [Assuming in this case that funds are available for two proposed educational programs, each suitable to enable the child to reach her maximum potential, it would appear reasonable to adopt the program requiring lesser expenditure. Nelson v. Southfield Public Schools, 148 Mich.App. 389, 384 N.W.2d 423 (1986). Under the higher Michigan standards, then, defendants proposed an adequate and sufficient plan to provide Marty a free appropriate public education offering to meet and develop the “maximum potential” of this child in light of his abilities and needs. 16 There was attention given to “mainstreaming” and to developing communication and relational skills with regard to other children and peers. Finally, we conclude that defendant met Michigan standards. We have reexamined the record, the briefs, the two administrative hearings, the magistrate judge’s extensive report and recommendation, and the district court’s order accepting the said report and recommendation that summary judgment be granted to defendant. We observe that in this case there was more than adequate consideration given to the requirements of the federal and state law standards as to the IEP formulation, as in Brimmer. Accordingly, under both federal and state law claims, we have made an independent review of the record under a modified de novo approach, we have given due deference to the state officer’s decision and consideration to the decisions of the magistrate judge and the district court, and we AFFIRM the decision of the latter court for defendant.