Navigating the bureaucratic maze to secure disability services is a grueling ordeal for any family. But for one seven-year-old girl with severe autism, two University of Miami School of Law students refused to let rigid regulations stand in the way of vital care.
Second-year law students Izabella Lyon and Aleah DeSanto—interns at the School of Law’s Children and Youth Law Clinic—spent a full academic year waging a dual-level legal battle. Their mission: overturn a denial of critical services by the Florida Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD).
Handling Legal Aspects of the Case
The challenge began almost immediately. Within weeks of starting their fall semester, Lyon and DeSanto were put directly into the role of lead trial attorneys.
The state had denied the young girl access to the Home and Community Based Care (HCBC) Waiver, a crucial Medicaid program designed to fund home- and community-based services for individuals with disabilities. Facing an imminent fair hearing requested by the child's mother, the duo had only a few weeks to prepare.
They fast-tracked their mastery of complex disability law, coordinated with multiple expert witnesses, and successfully executed cross-examinations against the state's opposing experts.
"The process can feel like a losing game," DeSanto said. "The rules are rigid, highly technical, and completely disconnected from how conditions like autism are actually diagnosed and understood. Families are expected to provide very specific documentation yet are rarely told what is needed until it is too late."
Creative Lawyering and Redefining Advocacy on Appeal
Despite a diagnosis from the child’s neurologist confirming the most severe form of autism, the administrative hearing officer upheld the state's denial. Undeterred, the clinic pushed forward. Under the supervision of professor and co-director Kele Stewart, the two students escalated the fight, filing an appeal with the District Court of Appeal.
This grueling process forced the students to confront a harsh reality gap, as they realized the legal frameworks governing assistance rarely align with the lived, day-to-day exhaustion of families managing severe disabilities. To counter a systemic flaw where bureaucracy often values rigid adherence to paperwork over clear, undeniable medical necessity, they had to engage in creative lawyering, bridging the gap between clinical facts and cold statutory language.
"You learn how to advocate in a challenging situation on issues that are very complex," said Lyon. "The law on the books doesn't always align with the day-to-day experiences of families, so you have to think creatively, connecting the law to the facts in ways that actually reflect people's lives. It really exercises a different part of your brain."
Beyond the Courtroom
The obstacles Lyon and DeSanto witnessed firsthand are far from isolated incidents. Their clinical experiences directly mirror the findings of an upcoming empirical report, co-authored by the clinic’s associate director, Robert Latham, exposing systemic flaws in the state's administrative decision-making process.
Determined to turn their courtroom battle into community action, the law students also presented their insights to a coalition of child welfare professionals, creating a roadmap to help other families better navigate the APD application minefield.
For both interns, the year-long battle transcended a single case file. It was a masterclass in recognizing a broken system—and gaining the legal tools necessary to dismantle it.
Read more about the School of Law’s clinics.
