An analysis of cedar rapids community school district v garret

Cedar Rapids Community Sch. Dist. v. Garret F. - Amicus (Merits)

The statute expressly lists psychological services, which can, in the case of a suicidal child, have extremely serious consequences. Congress recognized that providing a free appropriate public education under IDEA would be costly.

The proposal was motivated by concerns about cost. Many of the "related services" expressly listed in the statute, including "psychological services" and "physical and occupational therapy," may vary widely in complexity depending on the needs of the student receiving the services.

Such an approach misconceives the proper relationship between the courts and the Secretary's delegated authority to issue regulations necessary to carry out the requirements of IDEA. In so doing, it rejected the school district's argument that a cost-based, multifactor test that considers the nature and extent of services should be used to make the distinction.

The letter then unequivocally states that, "[i]f the student's IEP team determines that nursing services are a required related service for a particular student, those services must be provided at no cost to the parents. Garret is currently a student in the Cedar Rapids Community School District Districthe attends regular classes in a typical school program, and his academic performance has been a success.

Services provided by a physician other than for diagnostic and evaluation purposes are subject to the medical services exclusion, but services that can be provided by a nurse or qualified layperson are not.

Thus it ordered petitioner to reimburse respondent for health-care costs incurred for the school year. Garret is currently a student in the Cedar Rapids Community School District Districthe attends regular classes in a typical school program, and his academic performance has been a success.

He has not ever experienced autonomic hyperreflexia at school. That provision was enacted in direct response to the proposed, then withdrawn, regulatory changes. The ALJ noted that the parties disagreed over the training or licensure required for the care and supervision of such students, and that those providing such care in other parts of the country ranged from nonlicensed personnel to registered nurses.

In this case, it is undisputed that the services at issue must be provided if Garret is to remain in school. Are they effective in motivating compliance?

Cedar Rapids Community Sch. Dist. v. Garret F. - Amicus (Merits)

Petitioner refused to pay for the requested health services. Deference to the Secretary's interpretation of his own regulation is particularly appropriate here because of the longstanding nature of his interpretation.

He is able to speak, to control his motorized wheelchair through use of a puff and suck straw, and to operate a computer with a device that responds to head movements. During the school day he needed a personal attendant to see to his health care needs, which included urinary catheterizationsuctioning of his tracheostomy tube, and observation for respiratory distress.

Aside from nonsubstantive changes and added examples of included services, see, e. It also reflects congressional disapproval of a multi-factor determination of "medical services" that would expand the exclusion to take into account the extent or nature of the services by excluding services provided by any "specially trained, licensed health care professionals" or services that involve "a significant risk of illness or more than minimal injury to the child.

Although the majority recognizes this fact, it nonetheless concludes that the "more extensive" nature of the services that respondent needs is irrelevant to the question whether those services fall under the medical services exclusion. Congress defined FAPE to mean "special education and related services" that meet certain standards and are "provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge.

Though paralyzed from the neck down, his mental capacities were unaffected. This case is about whether meaningful access to the public schools will be assured.

Garret is currently a student in the Cedar Rapids Community School District Districthe attends regular classes in a typical school program, and his academic performance has been a success. As among educational agencies, this case raises the problem that for the small school district with a limited budget, an expensive special education service such as this or a placement such as a residential placement can be an extreme burden.

Persons other than existing school health personnel are often needed to provide many of the related services expressly listed in the statute including "speech pathology and audiology, psychological services, [and] physical and occupational therapy.

RowleyU. Absent an elaboration of the statutory terms plainly more convincing than that which we reviewed in Tatrothere is no good reason to depart from settled law. The District denied the request, believing that it was not legally obligated to provide continuous one-on-one nursing services.

I Respondent Garret F. The court did not address the state law issues.Garret F., a minor and student in Cedar Rapids Community School District, requires a wheelchair and is dependent upon a ventilator.

He requires assistance in attending to his physical needs during the school day. The Supreme Court of the United States U.S. 66 () Print this page CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT.

v. GARRET F., a minor, by his mother and next friend, CHARLENE F. In Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., [7] the Supreme Court held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) [8] requires public school districts to provide ventilator-dependent students with all-day one-on-one.

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., U.S. 66 (), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the related services provision in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) required public school districts to fund "continuous, one-on-one nursing care for disabled children" despite Citations: U.S.

66 (more), S. Ct. ; L. Ed. 2d Cedar Rapids v. Garret F. () Facts Garret F.

CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST. v. GARRET F.

was a student in the Cedar Rapids Community School District. He is quadriplegic and is ventilator-dependent due to his spinal column being severed from a motorcycle accident. Cedar Rapids Community School District v.

Garret F., U.S. 66 (), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the related services provision in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) required public school districts to fund "continuous, one-on-one nursing care for disabled children" despite Prior history: F.3d (8th Cir.

) (affirmed).

Download
An analysis of cedar rapids community school district v garret
Rated 4/5 based on 64 review