Opinion ID: 6983256
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Findings of LHO

Text: First, we note the following findings by the LHO which we believe are supported by the record, upon our independent review and reevaluation of the evidence: 1. “Drs. Meinhold [the only independent expert presented by plaintiffs] and Mesibov [a psychology professor and an expert submitted by defendant] both quickly acknowledged that an academic debate has been going on regarding these concerns [as to problems with the ‘Lovaas approach’] since publication of Lo-vaas’s original study in 1987 and it continues to this date.” JA 265. 2. Several of defendant’s experts agreed that some “discrete trial training was an appropriate methodology.” Id. 3.Several defendant experts had not actually observed Marty in the course of DTT training, and some school “team” members who devised the IEP at issue had no extensive DTT training or knowledge. See id. at 266-67. Our analysis and review of the evidence indicates that the LHO relied heavily in his decision upon Dr. Meinhold’s opinions and upon the opinions of plaintiffs. 12 Furthermore, the LHO was selective in his references to testimony of defendant’s expert, Dr. Mesibov, referring to his testimony generally when perceived to be in agreement with Dr. Meinhold. Moreover, he found the AAPS MET not to have “the background, experience, and training to assess Marty’s needs” properly because they, individually and collectively, lacked experience in “autism” and “discrete trial training.” JA 275. The MET team members were Marty’s teacher, a school psychologist, an occupational therapist, and a speech and language therapist. The LHO gave very strong emphasis to one particular approach, which he conceded was academically and professionally challenged as to its efficacy, and concentrated on this approach and its intensive application to the virtual exclusion of other approaches and opinions in his analysis and what he deemed as his “conclusions of law.” Ultimately, the LHO found what he considered to be procedural deficiencies in the formulation of the school board plan.