School says PA \"is not a disability\" under the law!!

I don't understand why the state attorney general is ruling on this. I wonder if the parents were denied a Section 504 Designation, and then went to due process? and the AG was the 'impartial' hearing officer? But that doesn't make sense because the parents would have had legal representation then.... and OCR would have been involved.
I don't understand the process that occurred here.

can the attorney general's decision be appealed?

no no no no no
this is so wrong.
I emailed the reported and asked her to forward my info to Ms. Duke along with that usdoe,ocr document stating that allergies are a hidden disability.
I wish she was local. I would open up a can on this.

Sounds to me like that school is fixing to get hit with a lawsuit. They should anyway.
This mother definately needs some input. So sad and frustrating.
Lana [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]

Here's the opinion from the atty gen.
[url="http://www.attorneygeneral.state.tn.us/op/2005/OP/OP178.pdf"]http://www.attorneygeneral.state.tn.us/op/2005/OP/OP178.pdf[/url]
S T A T E O F T E N N E S S E E
OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
P. O. Box 20207
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37202-0207
December 13, 2005
Opinion No. 05-178
Food Allergies under the ADA
QUESTION
Is a food allergy that can result in anaphylactic shock considered a disability under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?
OPINION
No. Food allergies, such as to peanuts, are generally not regarded as a disability as that term
is defined by the ADA.
ANALYSIS
Federal courts have routinely rejected ADA disability claims based solely on food allergies,
such as to peanuts and peanut products. The courts have unanimously concluded that the allergic
condition, by itself, does not rise to the level of a disability as defined by the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

What an ill-researched, poorly thought out opinion! He doesn't seem to even consider Section 504. Also "Land v. Baptist Medical Center" infuriates me anyway! The fact that he chose that as his precedent is SO annoying. That case was poorly argued about the "substantial limitation of major life activities". The major limitation here would be in "caring for oneself". A preschool child with an anaphylactic allergy is clearly substantially limited in caring for herself because she cannot identify or treat an allergic reaction on her own or avoid the allergen on her own. She is not able to "care for herself" in a similar manner and to the same degree as other children her age. AARRRGGHH!
Cathy
[This message has been edited by Momcat (edited January 24, 2006).]

So I wonder why state Rep. Gary Moore requested this opinion?
Cathy

I feel there's a bunch of missing information here. I quickly perused the above posts but did not see mention of involvement by an allergist. Did one sign off with documentation of the "life-threatening" peanut allergy. No mention of Section 504 either.
Another question that comes to mind would be how a transfer student, covered under Section 504 with a documented "life-threatening" disability would be handled in that district. One that maybe would be like Ryan and has been protected by a 504 for going on 4 years.
The attorney general has made one argument/decision, yet on the other hand there are hundreds and thousands of students who have achieved legal precedent before this decision was made with a 504 for food allergies.

Quote:Originally posted by Momcat:
[b]He doesn't seem to even consider Section 504. [/b]
Bingo.
Plus, in the Land case the physician's testimony was very damaging.