I.D.E.A. :INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT

Educational Rights of Children with Disabilities.

Cases:

There are a large number of cases involved in IDEA and its surrounding principles, such as FAPE, IEP, and LRE for example. Many are available through Lexis-Nexis (GENFED/COURTS, STATES/COURTS, GENFED/9th, AZCRT ) and Westlaw (ALLFEDS, CTA9-ALL, ALLCASES), the most significant ones in terms of this pathfinder follow. Useful search terms were "special education", "Fair Appropriate Public Education "(FAPE), "Least Restrictive Environment", "Individual Education Plan", "Individuals Disabilities Education Act", but terms may need some alteration to include individual search needs.

Some of the most important cases are:

• Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka KS 347 U.S. 483 (1954) in which the Supreme Court established that a seperate education is inherantly unequal.

• Mills v. Washington, D.C. Board of Education, 348 F.Supp. 866 [D.C. 1972]). Landmark case: public education must be extended to children with disabilities.

• Springdale School Dist. v Grace (1980, WD Ark) 494 F Supp 266, on the right of disabled children to free, appropriate public education (F.A.P.E.)

�

• Kathleen et. al v Massachusetts 154 F. 3d 8 1988 U.S. App No. 98-1006 affirmed - decided 9/4/98 - Confirms disabled students' rights to the least restrictive environment possible (L. R.E.)

�

Top of Page // Cases // Other Pertinant Cases // Other I.D.E.A. Cases

�

Other Pertinant Cases:

"Zero Reject"

• Timothy W., Etc., v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District, 875 F.2d 954; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 7356 No. 88-1847 . "Zero Reject" - under IDEA, the court ruled that profoundly and/or severely retarded children are not only not excluded from fair and appropriate public education (FAPE), but actually given priority. (20 U.S.C. � 1412(3) (emphasis added). See also 20 U.S.C. � 1414(a)(1) (C)). This was a landmark case in determination of level of services.

"Open Door"

"Door to Door Transportation"

• Hurry v. Jones 734 F.2d 879; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 22342.Nos. 83-1604, 83-1718. "Door to Door Transportation". The court concluded that the School Department's failure to provide George with transportation constituted discrimination on the basis of his handicap. It held that
  "finding an appropriate way in which to get George Hurry from his home onto a school bus would not have placed an undue financial or administrative burden on the Defendants, and the Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to relief". 560 F. Supp. at 511. The question to what extent damages are recoverable under � 504 is still unanswered. See id. at 630, 52 U.S.L.W. at 4303. The decision of the district court awarding the Hurrys $5,750.00 as reimbursement for transportation expenses and the decision denying their application for attorney's fees was affirmed. The decision awarding George Hurry $8,796.00 under the EAHCA and $5,000.00 under the Rehabilitation Act was reversed.

"Psychological Services and Counseling"

"Related Services"

• Irving Independent School Dist. v. Tatro, (468 U.S. 883, 82) L. Ed. 2d 664, 104 S. Ct. 3371, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 152, 52 U.S.L.W. 5151, 1 Am. Disabilities Dec.154 (1984). LANDMARK CASE "Related Services". United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court decision regarding a school district being required to provide non-medical nursing services on the ground that CIC (clean intermittant catheterization) is a "related service" under the Education of the Handicapped Act and therefore within the definition of a "free appropriate public education" under the Act, and that the refusal to provide CIC excluded the girl from a federally funded educational program in violation of 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

"Nursing as a Related Service"

• Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett F. 119 S. Ct. 992 (1999). "Nursing as a Related Service". The court affirmed the judgment that petitioner school district was financially responsible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to provide continuous one-on-one nursing services for respondent student. The medical services exclusion did not apply because the services that respondent needed to stay in school did not require the services of a doctor.

"Mainstreaming and Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)"

• Kathleen et. al v Massachusetts 154 F. 3d 8 1988 U.S. App No. 98-1006 affirmed - decided 9/4/98 - Confirms disabled students' rights to the least restrictive environment possible (L. R.E.)

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

"Continuum of Services" - 34 CRF � 300.551(a)

• Poolaw v. Bishop, Superintendent of Public Instruction; Arizona Dept. of Education No. 94-15324 9th Cir 1995. Specific child's needs balanced with the need to mainstream.

�

"Stay-Put Provision"

�

"Disciplining Special Education Students"

- 34 CFR 300.552 - so disruptive in regular classroom that the learning of others is disrupted.

�

"Freedom from Abuse"

• Pennsylvania Assoc. for Retarded Children (P.A.R.C.) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 344 F. Supp 1257 (E.D. Pa. 1971) & 343 F. Supp 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972), 307 (E.D. Pa. 1972).

�

�

Other I.D.E.A. cases

�

• Farrell v Carol Stream Sch. Dist. No. 25 (1996, ND Ill) 17 ADD 1182. IDEA (20 USCS �� 1400 et seq.) preempts any state law claim based on violation of its provisions; thus, parents of child who was allegedly denied special education services in violation of IDEA cannot recover damages for that violation on common law negligence claim.

�

• Board of Education v. Rowley, (458 U.S. 176, 73) L. Ed. 2d 690, 102 S. Ct. 3034, 1, .982 U.S. LEXIS 10, 50 U.S.L.W. 4925, 1 Am. Disabilities Dec. 85 (1982). United States Supreme Court held that a state which receives federal funds to educate handicapped children need not provide a sign-language interpreter for a deaf student who is receiving an adequate education and personalized instruction and related services calculated by local school administrators to meet her educational needs. The "free appropriate public education" test as set forth in 20 USCS 1401(18), as part of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (20 USCS 1401 et seq.), is satisfied if personalized instruction is being provided to a handicapped child with sufficient supportive services to permit the child to benefit from the instruction, and such instruction and services are provided at public expense and under public supervision, meet the state's educational standards, approximate the grade levels used in the state's regular education, and comport with the child's individualized educational program.

�

• School Committee of Burlington v. Department of Education, (471 U.S. 359), 85 L. Ed. 2d 385, 105 S. Ct. 1996, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 6, 53 U.S.L.W. 4509, 1 Am. Disabilities Dec. 234 (1985). The Supreme Court held that 20 USCS 1415(e)(2) authorizes a court to order school authorities to reimburse parents for their expenditures on private special education for a child if the court ultimately determines that such placement, rather than a proposed IEP, is proper under the Act, and that 20 USCS 1415(e)(3) does not bar such reimbursement to parents who reject a proposed IEP and place a child in a private school without the consent of local school authorities.

�

• Florence County School District IV v Carter, 114 S. Ct 361 (1993). Private placement sought by parents for disabled students need not meet state standarts for tuition reimbursement, but if sought by the school district it must comply with state standards.

�