D.R.V.C. v. Departamento De Educacion
KLRA202400288
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Mar 25, 2025Background
- DRVC, a minor eligible for special education under Puerto Rico’s Department of Education (DEPR), was placed at Colegio Clagill for the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years per a Committee on Special Education (COMPU) recommendation and an Individualized Education Program (PEI).
- The DEPR approved purchase of services at Clagill via reimbursement, not direct payment; the student's mother (Colón Navedo) struggled to pay and sought a change to direct payment due to economic hardship.
- Administrative proceedings were triggered by the mother's complaint demanding direct payment to Clagill and/or reimbursement for amounts paid, arguing the reimbursement approach deprived DRVC of a free, appropriate public education due to family indigence.
- The administrative board ruled only for reimbursement of actual payments made by the mother, denying direct payment absent a contract between DEPR and Clagill, and limited responsibility to services expressly authorized in the PEI.
- On appeal, the mother challenged the legal interpretation, scope of services authorized, and adequacy of remedies under federal and Puerto Rico law guaranteeing a free, appropriate public education for students with disabilities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DEPR authorized/services approved at Clagill | COMPU/PEI and DEPR letters included all requested services | Only those expressly listed in the PEI and authorization letters | Court: All proposed & discussed services were authorized. |
| Whether DEPR must pay direct to Clagill absent a contract | Direct pay is mandated if parents lack means for up-front pay | No contract, only reimbursement possible | Court: Direct pay is required in cases of indigence. |
| Whether amounts paid/proposed by Clagill are binding on DEPR | Approved proposals define costs owed; DEPR cannot lower amount | DEPR can set lower amounts, not bound by school’s proposal | Court: DEPR bound by approved proposal, not lesser sum. |
| Whether limited reimbursement is an adequate legal remedy | Excludes indigent students, violates IDEA | Reimbursement sufficient if process followed | Court: Remedy was inadequate; direct payment necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- School Committee v. Dept. of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1985) (IDEA authorizes reimbursement or direct payment for private placement if public program is inadequate)
- Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (U.S. 1993) (proper private placement when public system fails, requiring appropriate education)
- Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (standards for appropriateness of educational benefit under IDEA)
- Bonilla v. Chardón, 118 D.P.R. 599 (P.R. 1978) (special education as a constitutional/state law right in P.R.)
- Declet Ríos v. Departamento de Educación, 177 D.P.R. 765 (P.R. 2009) (scope of P.R.'s public education constitutional protections for special education students)