Yochim v. Gargano, 882 F. Supp. 2d 1068

Mr. Yochim, a 59-year-old Indiana resident blinded since birth, relied on Indiana DDRS/VRS for vocational rehab services since 2007.
He requested out-of-state training at the Colorado Center for the Blind; DDRS denied, affirmed by an impartial hearing officer.
He then filed a Title I Rehabilitation Act suit seeking injunctive relief to order out-of-state placement.
The court treated the motion as seeking reversal of the hearing officer’s decision and denied the preliminary injunction.
Court noted the extraordinary nature of ordering an out-of-state facility and the lack of precedent for such relief; Bosma in Indiana remained the proposed alternative.
The discussion includes the IPE, provider choices, transportation issues, and cost considerations that shaped the agency’s determinations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Yochim has a likelihood of success on the merits.	Yochim asserts denial of informed choice and out-of-state placement.	Defendants argue agency decision was reasonable and within Title I.	No; insufficient likelihood of success; deference to agency decision.
Whether Title I provides a private right of action for challenging a hearing officer’s decision.	Yochim relies on §722(c)(5)(J) to seek federal review.	Defendants contend no private right to challenge through injunctive relief.	Yes; court may review as de facto appeal of the hearing officer's decision.
Whether a preliminary injunction should issue to order out-of-state placement.	Colorado placement is necessary to meet employment/independence goals.	Placement must be informed by cost, availability, and in-state options; not compelled out-of-state.	Denied; extraordinary remedy not warranted given deference to agency/hearing officer and lack of necessity.
What is the proper standard of review of the hearing officer’s decision.	Should be independent review with less deference due to potential merits.	Deference appropriate; review should not substitute policy judgment.	Court adopts modified de novo review with substantial deference to agency findings.

Wasser v. New York State Office of Vocational & Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities, 602 F.3d 476 (2d Cir.2010) (de novo review with deference to agency policy views on title I decisions)
Mallett v. Wisconsin Div. of Vocational Rehabilitation, 130 F.3d 1245 (7th Cir.1997) (no private right of action under §722 implied by Congress; review limited)
Campbell v. Miller, 835 F. Supp. 2d 458 (S.D. Ohio 2011) (postdates Mallett; allows review of final agency decisions under Rehabilitation Act)