Return to the OP News Index

Return to the Services Index

TEACHER RECOVERS FOR INJURIES

INFLICTED BY STUDENT

Where the parents of an ADHD student decided to stop giving their son medication which reduced his aggressive behaviors, but failed to find out the consequences of doing so or alternative treatments and did not let the district know in order that it could develop a plan to manage the student's behavior, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the parents were negligent. Thus, the court held that a teacher injured by the student had a right to recover damages against the parents for their failure to exercise reasonable care given such was a substantial factor in causing the injuries. Nieuwendorp v American Family Ins Co, 22 IDELR 551 (1995).

The student here was a 4th grader who participated in both regular and special education classes. He became unruly, pulled a teacher's hair, and when she fell to the floor, the teacher injured her neck. The teacher sued the parents, whose insurance company contended that just because the parents took their son off medication should not constitute negligence. The court agreed, but said the parents did have a duty to take reasonable steps to control their son's behavior, including finding out what would happen if the drug was discontinued and letting the district know when it was so it could appropriately respond.

In its decision, the court also emphasized that nothing in its ruling would require parents to continue medicating their children so as to allow them to attend public school. Rather, if the parents chose to cease medication, they simply had to let the school district know so that it could develop a plan to manage the student's behavior.

IMPLICATIONS:

Questions relating to liability are very dependent upon each state's laws and how their courts interpret them as a matter of public policy. Here, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found that there was no public policy consideration which would keep it from finding that a parent might be liable in this type of situation. To our knowledge, a similar case has not arisen in Michigan. Thus, how Michigan courts would react is unclear.

A possible lesson to be learned from this case is that it reaffirms the importance of the good practice of parents and district representatives keeping each other continually informed with regard to the status of a student's medications and the student's behaviors at home and in school, in response to those medications. At a minimum, where appropriate, district representatives should inquire of parents as to whether a student is on medication and seek consent to discuss, if necessary, the student's situation with the prescribing physician. In addition, the district should advise the parents of the importance of their keeping it advised of any change in the student's medical status in order to allow it to take whatever steps might be appropriate to respond to a possible change in the student's behavior, including possibly the development of a behavior management plan.