Jefferson County School District R-1 v. Elizabeth E. Ex Rel. Roxanne B.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26608
10th Cir.2012Background
- Elizabeth E. was a Colorado IDEA student with significant behavioral/educational needs placed at Innercept (Idaho) in 2008-09 for which parents sought reimbursement.
- District did not provide a timely FAPE, prompting parents to seek reimbursement under 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii).
- IHO awarded reimbursement; ALJ affirmed; District challenged reimbursement in district court under IDEA § 1415(i)(3)(A).
- Court considered whether Innercept’s services constituted ‘special education’ and ‘related services’ within the IDEA, and whether parental conduct affected reimbursement.
- Court held the private placement was reimbursable under the Act and upheld the district court’s denial of any denial/reduction based on notice or evaluation arguments.
- Court based result on straightforward statutory text: Innercept was a state-accredited secondary school providing specially designed instruction and related services enabling educational benefit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Innercept is reimbursable under IDEA. | Innercept provided special education and related services. | Innercept lacked ‘special education’/‘related services’ per IDEA. | Reimbursable under IDEA. |
| Whether the private placement meets the ‘related services’ scope. | Services at Innercept aid education and are related services. | Some services may be medical rather than related services. | Yes, provides related services enabling benefit. |
| Whether parents’ notice/evaluation conduct reduced reimbursement. | Notice and evaluation requirements complied; conduct not fatal. | Noncompliance could reduce reimbursement under §1412(a)(10)(C)(iii). | No reduction; reimbursement affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kruelle v. New Castle County Sch. Dist., 642 F.2d 687 (3d Cir. 1981) (whether residential placement is for educational purposes remains central to eligibility)
- Mary T. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 575 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2009) (residential treatment not reimbursable when educational needs not addressed by education-focused program)
- Burlington Sch. Comm. v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (1985) (public placement must be timely to qualify for reimbursement)
- Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1984) (unilateral private placement reimbursement framework; conditions on eligibility)
- Irving Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984) (related services broadened to include non-medical supports necessary for education)