Legal Rights of Children with Epilepsy in School & Child Care

The Special Education Process for Children with Epilepsy: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
Girty v. School District of Valley Grove, 60 Fed. Appx. 889 (3d Cir. 2002)
The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision (163 F.Supp. 2d 527), which had
applied Oberti to order the inclusion of a student transitioning from elementary to middle
school.
L.B. v. Nebo School District, 379 F.3d 966 (10 th Cir. 2004)
In finding that the district violated the student’s right to placement in the least restrictive
environment, the court adopted the Daniel R.R. test, but did not specifically apply the
cost factors to the case at hand.
Tuition Reimbursement
School Committee of Burlington v. Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359 (1985)
The Court held that the EHA permits a court to order a school authority to reimburse
parents for their expenditures on private special education for their child if the court
ultimately determines that such placement, rather than the proposed IEP, is proper.
Parents do not waive their right to reimbursement if they change their child’s placement
while waiting for the courts to review the appropriateness of a proposed IEP. However, if
the court ultimately determines that the proposed IEP was appropriate, the parents would
not be reimbursed for the costs of having their child privately schooled while waiting for
a decision.
Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1985)
Parents are entitled to reimbursement for private placement if they demonstrate that the
public school placement was inappropriate under the IDEA and that the private school
placement complied with the minimum standard of appropriateness established by the
IDEA: that the placement is reasonably calculated to provide an educational benefit. The
private school placement does not have to meet all of the specific IDEA requirements
applicable to educational placements made by public school systems.
Compensatory Services
Miener v. Missouri, 800 F.2d 749 (8 th Cir. 1986)
Post-Burlington, this case came to the Eighth Circuit for the second time, and the court
held that a plaintiff who establishes a denial of a free appropriate public education in
violation of the EHA is entitled to compensatory services. The court noted that a child’s
entitlement to a “free” education does not turn on the parent’s ability to front the cost of
that education and that when parents do not have the money to purchase educational
services for their children, education officials cannot escape liability.
63