---
title: "Why Expert Legal Interpretations Were Excluded in Section 504 Case"
meta:
  "og:description": "Learn about a case where a school district's compliance with Section 504 and the ADA was challenged after a student's injury"
  "og:title": "Why Expert Legal Interpretations Were Excluded in Section 504 Case"
  author: "Expert Witness Profiler"
  description: "Learn about a case where a school district's compliance with Section 504 and the ADA was challenged after a student's injury"
---

# Why Expert Legal Interpretations Were Excluded in Section 504 Case

Posted on March 10, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler

O.B., diagnosed with ADHD at age seven, sustained a severe self-inflicted gunshot wound, resulting in permanent blindness. Following the incident, his parents alleged that Colbert Elementary School in the Mead School District (MSD) failed to provide him with necessary accommodations under the Rehabilitation Act and the [Americans with Disabilities Act](https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/disability/ada). Central to the dispute was whether the shooting was accidental or a suicide attempt.

The heart of the legal dispute centered on the admissibility of expert testimony from [Amy Klosterman](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Amy-Klosterman/1563212). This sparked a sharp conflict between the Defendant’s objections and the Plaintiff’s counterarguments.

## **Law & Legal Expert Witness**

[Amy Klosterman](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Amy-Klosterman/1563212) conducts neutral investigations of school and workplace issues. Klosterman has over 15 years of experience conducting investigations to help serve your school or company. She is an Association of Workplace Investigators Certificate Holder (AWI-CH). She has been trained as a Title IX investigator under the 2024 Title IX regulations (K12 and higher education), and as a Title IX investigator and decision maker under the 2020 Title IX regulations (K12 and higher education).

[Get the full story on challenges to Amy Klosterman’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.](https://app.expertwitnessprofiler.com/login?eId=1563212)

## **Discussion by the Court**

### **Defendant’s Objection**

First and foremost, the Defendant, MSD, moved to exclude Klosterman’s testimony, asserting that her report was replete with improper legal conclusions. In essence, they argued that she was overstepping her role as an expert witness by interpreting and applying legal standards, specifically those of [Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act](https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/centers-offices/civil-rights-center/statutes/section-504-rehabilitation-act-of-1973), which is the Court’s responsibility. Furthermore, MSD was concerned that Klosterman’s interpretations would unduly influence the jury, potentially leading them to defer to her legal opinions rather than forming their own judgments. They wanted to protect the integrity of the legal process, ensuring the jury was guided by the court’s legal instructions.

Essentially, the defense argued that the expert was giving legal conclusions that should be left to the court.

### **Plaintiff’s Opposition**

Conversely, the Plaintiffs countered that Klosterman’s testimony was not about providing legal conclusions but about offering a factual analysis of whether MSD’s actions complied with established procedures and regulations under Section 504. Specifically, they argued that her expertise lay in the procedural aspects of disability law and that she was merely assessing whether the district followed those procedures.

Moreover, they tried to distinguish between giving a legal opinion on “deliberate indifference” versus giving an opinion on the factual process of the school district, and if that process was followed. Additionally, the Plaintiffs also argued that Klosterman’s testimony was essential to help the jury navigate the complex regulatory framework of Section 504, claiming that the regulations were highly technical and required expert clarification. Finally, they also requested that if the court found portions of the testimony inadmissible, it should narrow the scope instead of fully excluding it.

### **Analysis**

Ultimately, the Court sided with the Defendant, excluding Klosterman’s testimony.

#### **Improper Legal Conclusions:**

Firstly, the Court found that Klosterman’s report contained numerous legal conclusions, including interpretations of Section 504 regulations and opinions on MSD’s compliance. Indeed, her report directly stated how the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) would rule on the case, and gave legal opinions on the school districts legal requirements under section 504. Therefore, the Court highlighted that the expert was essentially instructing the jury on applicable law, which is the role of the Court.

#### **Rejection of “Complex Framework” Argument:**

Secondly, Plaintiffs argued that Klosterman’s testimony was necessary to explain the complex regulatory framework of Section 504. However, the Court rejected this, stating that the regulations were not so complex as to warrant expert legal interpretation, and that many of the experts statements were direct copies of the regualtions. Furthermore, the Court also noted that legal expert testimony is more acceptable in bench trials, where a judge, rather than a jury, is the fact-finder.

Moreover, the Court noted that while expert testimony on technical matters is sometimes allowed, this case did not meet the criteria.

## **Held**

The Court granted the Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Amy Klosterman.

## **Key Takeaway:**

In conclusion, this case serves as a reminder of the limitations of expert testimony. Experts can provide valuable insights into factual matters, but they cannot usurp the court’s role in interpreting and applying the law. Thus, in cases involving disability law, understanding the nuances of expert testimony is crucial for both Plaintiffs and Defendants.

## **Case Details:**

---

## **You Might Also Like**

![Intellectual Property Expert&#39;s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T205412.117.jpg) [**Intellectual Property Expert’s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/why-expert-legal-interpretations-were-excluded-in-section-504-case/intellectual-property-experts-opinion-on-misappropriation-excluded)![Automotive Industry Expert&#39;s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T191143.335.jpg) [**Automotive Industry Expert’s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/why-expert-legal-interpretations-were-excluded-in-section-504-case/automotive-industry-experts-testimony-on-pricing-practices-excluded)![Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T160600.039.jpg) [**Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/why-expert-legal-interpretations-were-excluded-in-section-504-case/consumer-credit-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-mixed-files)![Appraisal Expert&#39;s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T194055.299.jpg) [**Appraisal Expert’s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/why-expert-legal-interpretations-were-excluded-in-section-504-case/appraisal-experts-testimony-on-deceptiveness-excluded)![Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T153456.164.jpg) [**Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/why-expert-legal-interpretations-were-excluded-in-section-504-case/psychology-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-emdr-therapy)