1/5 Andrea & Detlev H. 3 years ago on Google • 2 reviews
For
our
obviously
autistic
son,
the
high
school
and
the
BIS-Autismus
SH
provided
a
kind
of
compensation
for
disadvantages
even
without
a
diagnosis.
School
support
and
further
compensation
for
disadvantages
became
necessary
in
2017,
we
were
asked
by
the
teaching
staff
to
provide
a
diagnosis.
The
autism
was
clear
to
everyone
involved.
The
pediatrician
referred
us
-
expressly
for
diagnostics
-
to
Villa
Paletti,
who
suggested
a
short-term
stay
as
an
observational
diagnostic.
The
teacher
was
not
heard
there,
according
to
the
medical
records,
a
diagnosis
was
not
adequately
made,
and
autism
was
quickly
ruled
out
without
us
being
informed.
The
stay
lasted
for
months,
even
though
Villa
Paletti
already
ruled
out
autism.
Fatal
for
our
son,
who,
as
an
autistic
person,
suffered
so
much
from
his
stay
in
the
day
hospital
that
he
showed
symptoms
(shutdown),
which
is
why
Villa
Paletti
repeatedly
justified
the
extension.
On
the
advice
of
the
pediatrician,
we
ended
our
stay
when
we
found
out
that
the
diagnostics
had
already
been
completed.
In
2018,
we
received
a
confirmed
diagnosis
of
autism
in
another
clinic,
it
was
so
clearly
present!
He
has
lost
valuable
time
since
his
first
contact
with
Villa
Paletti
(2014).
He
could
have
been
given
appropriate
support
in
elementary
school.
As
a
mother,
I
am
really
angry
about
this
development,
so
I,
as
a
lawyer,
called
Prof.
Dr.
Dr.
I
commissioned
Kaatsch
from
Kiel
to
submit
a
request
for
arbitration.
The
V.P.
has
accepted
the
arbitration
request.
rejected.
Now
we're
suing.
Another
medical
report
for
the
school
revealed
that
he
also
has
ADD
and
an
isolated
spelling
disorder
and
a
reading
disorder.
It
should
be
noted
that
we
first
approached
Villa
Paletti
in
2014
-
without
any
suspicion
of
autism
-
because
the
teachers
at
the
primary
school
suspected
ADD
or
something
similar.
The
failed
diagnostics
began
here,
which
over
the
years
also
led
to
incorrect
therapeutic
approaches
etc.
Since
in
2014
there
was
already
noticeable
slowness
in
completing
school
tasks,
missed
lessons
and
days
as
well
as
significant
limitations
in
concentration,
we
as
parents
questioned
the
basic
recommendation
to
attend
a
high
school.
We
asked
Villa
Paletti
for
help
with
a
decision.
The
written
recommendation
at
the
time
was
to
continue
attending
high
school.
This
failed
despite
school
support.
The
current
report
for
the
school
states
that
he
is
a
special
needs
student
and
was
already
a
special
needs
student
at
primary
school.
He
went
to
the
wrong
type
of
school
for
years.
The
intelligence
profile
created
by
Villa
Paletti
was
incorrect;
there
were
"transfer
errors"
in
the
individual
results
in
the
medical
records,
for
example.
For
example,
if
a
finding
was
made
before
the
required
subtests
were
completed
weeks
later,
this
finding
was
then
incorrect
in
terms
of
performance
due
to
the
later
subtests,
but
was
not
subsequently
adjusted
to
the
new
test
results.
Villa
Paletti
then
repeatedly
relied
on
the
incorrect
initial
findings.
The
incorrect
initial
finding
was
not
checked
again
in
all
the
years
of
connection
to
Villa
Paletti,
although
all
recommended
therapies
were
unsuccessful
and
school
performance
remained
severely
impaired.
Our
son
has
developed
an
adjustment
disorder,
he
has
care
level
3,
a
GdB
of
80
B/H,
he
is
currently
being
taught
one-on-one
at
a
community
school
with
one
and
a
half
lessons
a
day
by
a
special
education
teacher.
Whether
this
is
the
result
of
incorrect
findings
by
Villa
Paletti
will
now
have
to
be
clarified
in
court.
We
are
supported
by
the
health
insurance
company,
which
has
its
own
MdK
report
prepared
in
order
to
then,
if
necessary,
claim
back
its
own
expenses
due
to
Villa
Paletti's
errors.
15 people found this review helpful 👍