Petit v. U.S. Department of Education
756 F. Supp. 2d 11
D.D.C.2010Background
- This case challenges a 2006 Department of Education regulation excluding cochlear implant mapping from IDEA 'related services'.
- The IDEA defines related services and was amended to exclude surgically implanted medical devices from coverage; disagreement centers on mapping's inclusion.
- Plaintiffs are parents of children with cochlear implants asserting the mapping service is within related services under IDEA.
- The court previously held the 2006 regulation was reasonable in APA review; this decision focuses on the IDEA claim merits.
- The court reviews the Secretary’s interpretation of its own regulation under established deference standards.
- The court concludes the 2006 regulation does not violate the IDEA and grants summary judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2006 regulation is necessary to comply with the IDEA | Petit argues regulation not necessary | Defendants contend ambiguity justified necessity | Regulation necessary to ensure compliance |
| Whether the 2006 regulation contradicts or lessens protections of the 1983 regulations | Mapping is within 1983 protections | Ambiguity allows deference to agency interpretation | No contradiction or undue lessening; regulation valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Irving Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984) (deference to agency regulations in related services analyzed)
- Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Garret, 526 U.S. 66 (1999) (upholds deference to agency interpretation of related services)
- Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504 (1994) (agency interpretation entitled to controlling weight when regulation ambiguous)