This month’s update concerns two issues that were subject to recent court decisions and are of practical significance: (a) contingent IEPs for students in third-party placements, such as Medicaid-provided residential treatment facilities; and (b) restrictions on parental communications to district personnel based on a previous pattern of excessive or intimidating e-mails, calls, and/or visits.
This monthly legal alert summarizes two recent cases that are officially published federal appeals court decisions. Mr. P. v. West Hartford Board of Education (2018) illustrates various basic issues under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Pollack v. Regional School Unit (2018) identifies a potentially significant additional obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
This latest monthly legal alert summarizes two recent officially published federal court decisions, R.E.B. v. Hawaii Department of Education (2017) and Richardson v. District of Columbia (2017), that respectively illustrate (a) an unusually rigorous interpretation of the requirements for IEPs, and (b) the continuing relaxed application of the requirements for evaluations.
This latest monthly legal alert summarizes a recent published, federal appellate court decision that is significant for its multiple issue rulings. In M.C. v. Antelope Valley Unified School District (2017), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made several rulings that were completely or partially against the defendant district that appear to have notable implications for special education practice and litigation. Although not at all limited to these particular facts, the child in this case was a high school student who had a genetic disorder that rendered him blind and with a host of developmental delays in all academic areas. This decision is binding only in the nine states in the Far West that encompass the Ninth Circuit. However, it is not unusual for published federal appellate decisions to have a radiating, persuasive effect on other jurisdictions. Some of these rulings are much more likely than others to “stick” in jurisdictions beyond the Ninth Circuit.