L.K., by His Parents, S.K. and J.W. v. New York City Department of
674 F. App'x 100
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- L.K., a student with disabilities, and his parents sued the NYC Department of Education under the IDEA seeking reimbursement for privately obtained supplemental services for the 2013–14 school year.
- Administrative proceedings (SRO) and the district court concluded some services were unnecessary and not reimbursable because they exceeded what would constitute a FAPE.
- The district court granted summary judgment to DOE; Parents appealed to the Second Circuit.
- The Second Circuit applied the Burlington/Carter three‑prong test (FAPE, appropriateness of private placement, and equities) to assess reimbursement.
- The court affirmed that parents are not entitled to reimbursement for services in excess of a FAPE, identified ambiguities about an extra 1.5 hours of occupational therapy tied to pendency, and found the district court erred by not resolving reasonableness of costs and the ongoing scope of supplemental services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parents are entitled to full reimbursement for private services found appropriate under Burlington/Carter prong 2 | Full reimbursement once private program is appropriate | Reimbursement should be limited to services necessary to provide a FAPE | Parents are not automatically entitled to full reimbursement; reimbursement is limited to costs for services required to provide a FAPE (prong 3 limits apply) |
| Whether the additional 1.5 hours of occupational therapy not covered by the pendency order should be reimbursed | That the extra OT hours should be reimbursed | That those hours may exceed what the district would be required to provide and thus are not reimbursable | Remanded: district court must determine whether the extra 1.5 OT hours were compensable under the pendency/entitlement analysis |
| Whether the amount parents paid was reasonable (rate issue) and whether DOE’s reimbursement rate was too low given NYC market rates | Paid amounts reflect reasonable NYC market rates and should be reimbursed in full | DOE’s rate may reflect lower public cost; reimbursement should be limited if private costs were unreasonable | Remanded: district court must determine reasonableness of parents’ expenses and whether full reimbursement is appropriate or limited to a reasonable amount |
| Whether the precise scope of L.K.’s entitlement to home/community supplemental services should be decided now or left for future yearly disputes | Court should decide scope to avoid repeated yearly litigation | DOE contends scope can be determined in future proceedings | Remanded: district court should address the scope now (or remand to state admin) to avoid recurring, unreviewed disputes; stay may be appropriate pending Endrew F. decision |
Key Cases Cited
- C.F. ex rel. R.F. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 746 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2014) (discussing IDEA standards and Burlington/Carter test)
- Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006) (equitable considerations re: reasonableness of parents’ actions relevant to relief)
- Sch. Comm. of Town of Burlington, Mass. v. Dep’t of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1985) (establishing Burlington/Carter three‑prong framework)
- Florence Cty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (U.S. 1993) (courts must assess appropriate and reasonable level of reimbursement)
- Still v. DeBuono, 101 F.3d 888 (2d Cir. 1996) (reimbursement should relate to services state would be required to furnish and fees charged)
- Bd. of Educ. of Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Schutz, 290 F.3d 476 (2d Cir. 2002) (harm capable of repetition yet evading review justifies adjudication)
- E.M. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 758 F.3d 442 (2d Cir. 2014) (remand to state administrative officers may be appropriate for further factual development)