An 11-year-old boy with complex medical needs collapsed in his Georgia classroom after, his parents say, staff ignored written orders that barred screen time and required an immediate medical response. The lawsuit that followed alleges that instead of following his seizure plan, employees gave him an iPad, watched him go into distress, then stepped over his body as he seized on the floor.
At the center of the case is Aa’Dyen Hooks, a child whose parents say fought to live from the moment doctors diagnosed him with multiple severe disabilities, and whose death they now argue was both preventable and emblematic of deeper failures in how schools care for medically fragile students.
The lawsuit and the allegation of staff “stepping over” a seizing child
The complaint filed by Aa’Dyen Hooks’ parents paints a stark picture of what they say unfolded inside his Columbia County classroom. According to their account, the 11-year-old collapsed into a seizure after staff ignored written medical restrictions, then lay on the floor while adults moved around him instead of immediately intervening. The family’s lawsuit says employees effectively stepped over and around the boy as he seized, a detail that has become a shorthand for what they describe as a culture of indifference to his life.
Those allegations are tied directly to the moment when Aa’Dyen, who had a history of serious neurological issues, went into a prolonged seizure and suffered catastrophic brain injury. Reporting on the case notes that, Following the incident he was left with a severe brain injury, placed in a coma, and later described by Doctors as being in a vegetative state before he died. The family argues that every minute of delay, and every choice not to follow his plan, compounded the harm.
Aa’Dyen’s medical history and the risks everyone knew about
To understand why his parents say this was not a freak accident, it helps to look at how much was already known about Aa’Dyen’s condition. Long before he entered that classroom, Dyen Hooks had been fighting for his life. Doctors had diagnosed him with multiple severe disabilities, including neurological problems that made seizures a constant threat, and his care team had spent years refining routines to keep him safe at home and at school.
Those diagnoses were not vague or informal. Multiple reports describe how Dyen Hooks had been identified by Doctors as a child with complex medical needs that required strict adherence to his care plan. Another account notes that Dyen Hooks had fought for his life even before birth, underscoring that his vulnerabilities were not new information for Columbia County Schools or the staff who worked with him daily.
The IEP and emergency plan the family says were ignored
Central to the lawsuit is the claim that the school had, in writing, exactly what it needed to keep Aa’Dyen safe and simply did not follow it. His parents say his Individualized Education Program, or IEP, and a separate emergency medical plan spelled out step-by-step instructions for what staff must do at the first sign of a seizure. Those documents, they argue, were not optional guidelines but binding commitments that Columbia County Schools had agreed to implement every day he was on campus.
According to the Family, the IEP for Dyen included explicit directions that if he showed signs of distress, staff were to stop what they were doing and immediately go get the nurse, rather than waiting to see if he recovered on his own. One report notes that the Family claims school to follow that IEP before the seizure that led to his death. Another account quotes the family’s attorney saying there were “very specific instructions” in his plan, and that the district is now facing a suit seeking damages, including punitive damages, because those instructions were allegedly ignored, as detailed in a separate account of those.
The iPad, screen-time restrictions, and a known seizure trigger
One of the most specific claims in the lawsuit is that staff gave Aa’Dyen an iPad even though his medical plan barred that kind of screen exposure. His parents say flashing lights and visual stimulation were known seizure triggers for their son, and that they had worked with the district to put clear limits on technology use in his classroom. The allegation is not that staff were unaware of the risk, but that they chose convenience over safety.
Family members have said that For Horton and her family, the restrictions on screens were not arbitrary, they were grounded in years of watching how quickly Dyen could go from calm to crisis when exposed to certain visual patterns. One report notes that For Horton and her relatives stressed that placing him next to windows or giving him devices carried a real risk of triggering. In a video segment, the family also describes district employees placing him near bright windows and ignoring those environmental limits, as shown in a recorded investigation that highlights how those choices allegedly set the stage for the fatal event.
Inside the classroom: what the family says happened as he seized
According to the complaint, the sequence inside the classroom unfolded with chilling predictability. After being given the iPad, Aa’Dyen began to show signs of distress that his parents say any trained staff member should have recognized as the onset of a seizure. Instead of immediately following his emergency plan, the lawsuit alleges that staff hesitated, failed to call for the nurse at once, and allowed the seizure to escalate until he collapsed.
Accounts of the incident describe how, After an 11-year-old boy had a seizure at school that led to his death, his parents decided to sue the district and several employees, arguing that the adults in the room did not act with the urgency his condition demanded. A social media post summarizing the case notes that After an extended seizure, he was transported for emergency care but never recovered. Another version of that same summary emphasizes that After an 11-year-old boy had a seizure at school that led to his death, his parents are now seeking accountability for what they see as a cascade of preventable failures, as reflected in a separate description of the.
Disputed medical response and questions about CPR
Once Aa’Dyen collapsed, the focus shifted from prevention to emergency response, and here too the family says the school fell short. Their lawsuit questions whether staff initiated CPR correctly or quickly enough, and whether the nurse and first responders were given accurate information about how long he had been seizing. The family’s attorney has suggested that inconsistencies in staff accounts raise serious doubts about the quality of care he received in those critical minutes.
One detailed report on the case highlights a disputed medical response, quoting the family’s lawyer as saying, “If they’re doing CPR, why is he in this condition,” a question that goes to the heart of whether the school’s actions met basic standards. That same report notes that this challenge was raised directly on behalf of Dyen’s parents. A separate account of the same dispute, which also references a “Disputed medical response,” reinforces that the family is not only alleging negligence before the seizure, but also challenging the adequacy of the life-saving efforts described by staff, as outlined in another summary of that.
Columbia County Schools’ response and legal posture
Columbia County Schools has not accepted the family’s narrative, and the district’s response is now a central part of the legal and public debate. Officials have said they are reviewing the incident and have expressed condolences, but they also indicate that staff followed training and district protocols. The lawsuit, however, names Columbia County Schools and several employees directly, arguing that institutional decisions, not just individual mistakes, led to Aa’Dyen’s death.
Coverage of the case notes that the Family claims Columbia County Schools ignored the emergency medical plan during the fatal incident, and that Parents are suing a Georgia school district over what they describe as systemic failures in how it handled their son’s care, as detailed in one account of the. Another report emphasizes that the school district has formally responded to the allegations, with a section titled “School district responds to allegations” explaining that Columbia County Schools is defending its employees and asserting that they acted appropriately, as reflected in a summary of that. A separate version of that same response reiterates that the School district responds to allegations by stressing its commitment to student safety and reserving detailed comment while litigation is pending, as captured in another description of the.
A mother’s advocacy and a child who “beat the odds”
Behind the legal filings is a family that had spent years learning how to navigate hospitals, specialists, and school meetings to keep their son alive. His mom was always there, advocating for her son, pushing for services, and insisting that staff understand his triggers and needs. Relatives describe Aa’Dyen as a child who “always had a determination to thrive and beat the odds,” someone who did not look like what people might expect when they heard about his diagnoses, but who radiated personality and resilience.
One account notes that His mom was always there, advocating for her son, and that she had watched staff move him and flip him onto his back during earlier incidents, which shaped her insistence on clear protocols, as described in a report that highlights how His mom tried to shape his care. Another piece underscores that For Horton and her family, this lawsuit is about awareness and making sure there is not another incident like Dyen’s, with Horton saying that Change needs to happen so that other medically fragile students are not put at similar risk, as laid out in a segment that stresses that For Horton and her relatives, Dyen’s story must lead to systemic reform. A separate version of that same segment reiterates that For Horton and her family, this is about awareness and that Change must follow Dyen’s death, as emphasized in another discussion of Change.
What the broader reporting shows about systemic gaps
When I look across the reporting, what stands out is how many layers of protection were supposed to be in place for Aa’Dyen, and how each one appears to have frayed. The Family claims school staff failed to follow the boy’s IEP before the seizure, that Columbia County Schools ignored his emergency medical plan, and that staff exposed him to known triggers like screens and bright windows. Taken together, those allegations describe not just a single bad decision but a pattern of disregarding written safeguards that were designed precisely to prevent the kind of crisis that unfolded.
One detailed account explains that the Family claims school staff failed to follow the boy’s IEP before the seizure, including the directive to go get the nurse at the first sign of trouble, as laid out in a report that notes the Family claims school to act. Another report on the same case underscores that Family claims Columbia County Schools ignored the emergency medical plan during the fatal incident, and that Close relatives are now pressing their case in court, as summarized in a piece that notes how Family claims Columbia failed to live up to its obligations. A separate version of that same summary reiterates that Family claims Columbia County Schools ignored the plan and that Parents in Georgia are now suing, as reflected in another account of Parents in Georgia taking the district to court.
Why this case is resonating far beyond one Georgia classroom
For families of children with disabilities, Aa’Dyen’s story is hitting a nerve because it crystallizes fears they live with every school day. Many parents spend years building detailed IEPs and emergency plans, only to wonder whether those documents will actually be followed when it matters. The Hooks family’s lawsuit is a blunt assertion that, in their son’s case, the system they trusted failed at every level, from classroom staff to district leadership.
More from Decluttering Mom: