CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2014

B.K. v. New York City Department of Education

G.K., a child diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, faced educational challenges for the 2011-2012 school year. His parents, B.K. and Y.K., initiated legal action against the New York City Department of Education, alleging that the Department failed to provide G.K. with a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). The parents sought tuition reimbursement for G.K.'s private special education program and direct funding for home-based therapy, appealing an administrative decision that had previously denied their claims. The Department subsequently filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The District Court, after conducting an independent review of the administrative record and giving due weight to the state administrative proceedings, denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the Department's cross-motion, concluding that the May 2011 Individualized Education Program (IEP) proposed by the Department was procedurally and substantively adequate.

Individualized Education ProgramFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividuals with Disabilities Education ActAutism Spectrum DisorderSpecial EducationTuition ReimbursementDue Process HearingBehavioral Intervention PlanFunctional Behavioral AssessmentParental Participation
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M.S. ex rel. R.R. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiff M.S., individually and on behalf of her autistic son R.R., brought an action against the New York City Department of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). M.S. sought tuition reimbursement for R.R.’s unilateral private school placement after challenging the adequacy of the Department’s proposed Individualized Education Program (IEP). An Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) initially sided with M.S., but a State Review Officer (SRO) reversed this decision, finding the IEP compliant with IDEA. In the federal district court, M.S. appealed the SRO's decision. The court, affording due deference to the SRO's expertise, upheld the SRO's finding that the Department’s IEP was both procedurally and substantively adequate, thereby denying M.S.'s motion for summary judgment and granting the Department's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActSpecial EducationAutismTuition ReimbursementIndividualized Education ProgramDue ProcessAdministrative AppealSummary JudgmentEducational LawDisability Rights
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J.B. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiff J.B., on behalf of her child K.B., sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) for failing to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the 2014-2015 school year. The Parent sought tuition reimbursement for K.B.'s private school placement at the Rebecca School. Both an Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) and a State Review Officer (SRO) ruled against the Parent, affirming the adequacy of DOE's FAPE offer. The U.S. District Court, after reviewing the procedural and substantive adequacy of K.B.'s Individualized Education Program (IEP), denied the Parent's motion for summary judgment and granted the DOE's cross-motion. The Court concluded that the DOE's recommended IEP was reasonably calculated to provide K.B. with a FAPE.

IDEAFAPEIEPSpecial EducationDisability LawAutism Spectrum DisorderTuition ReimbursementSummary JudgmentDue Process ComplaintLeast Restrictive Environment
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

B.P. v. New York City Department of Education

This case involves B.P. and A.P., parents of D.P., seeking relief against the New York City Department of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant failed to provide D.P. with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2009-2010 school year, arguing that the proposed Individualized Education Program (IEP) was inappropriate and seeking tuition reimbursement for D.P.'s private schooling. The Court reviewed the decisions of the Impartial Hearing Officer and State Review Officer, both of whom had denied tuition reimbursement. Ultimately, the District Court found that the education offered by the Defendant was appropriate under the IDEA, denying the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granting the Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.

Individuals with Disabilities ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education ProgramTuition ReimbursementSummary Judgment MotionSpecial EducationLearning DisabilitiesAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderAdministrative ReviewParents' Rights
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

P.G. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiffs P.G. and D.G., on behalf of their minor child J.G., sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). They sought reimbursement for J.G.'s enrollment at Eagle Hill School for the 2010-2011 academic year, alleging the DOE failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The court reviewed an administrative decision by a State Review Officer (SRO) from April 6, 2012, which found DOE's individualized education program (IEP) for J.G. adequate and reversed a prior Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) decision. The court denied the parents' motion in part and granted the DOE's motion in part, affirming the SRO's findings on the IEP's procedural and substantive soundness. However, the court remanded the issue of the appropriateness of a 12:1:1 classroom placement to the SRO for further consideration.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education ProgramSpecial EducationTuition ReimbursementAdministrative ReviewState Review OfficerImpartial Hearing OfficerProcedural AdequacySubstantive Adequacy
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2015

S.B. ex rel. S.B. v. New York City Department of Education

The case involves plaintiffs S.B. (parent) and E.G. challenging an administrative decision regarding E.G.'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The plaintiffs sought tuition reimbursement for E.G.'s unilateral placement in a private school after alleging the New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The district court reviewed the Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) and State Review Officer's (SRO) conflicting decisions. The court granted plaintiffs' summary judgment motion on the IDEA claim, finding procedural and substantive IEP violations and that the proposed public school placement was inappropriate. However, the court denied plaintiffs' claims under the Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as no bad faith or gross misjudgment was demonstrated. The defendants' cross-motion was accordingly denied for the IDEA claim and granted for the other claims.

IDEAFAPEIEPTuition ReimbursementSpecial EducationDue Process HearingAdministrative ReviewSummary JudgmentRehabilitation ActADA
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

GB v. New York City Department of Education

The Parents (GB and DB) on behalf of their son AB, who has autism and multiple medical conditions, sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under the IDEA for failing to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the 2012-2013 school year. They sought reimbursement for AB's tuition at the private Rebecca School, where he was unilaterally placed. The district court found procedural violations by the DOE and a substantive deficiency in AB's Individualized Education Plan (IEP) regarding his medical needs. Specifically, the IEP failed to account for AB's seizure disorder and PANDAS, and the proposed public school placement (Horan) was inappropriate due to its lack of climate control. The court granted the Parents' motion for summary judgment and ordered the DOE to fully reimburse the tuition.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education PlanTuition ReimbursementSpecial EducationAutism Spectrum DisorderSeizure DisorderPANDASSensory Processing DisorderClimate Control Accommodation
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M.T. ex rel. N.M. v. New York City Department of Education

The plaintiff, M.T., on behalf of her son N.M., challenged the State Review Officer's (SRO) decision denying tuition reimbursement for N.M.'s placement at the Rebecca School for the 2010-2011 school year. The SRO had reversed an Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) decision which found the New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to provide N.M. with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The District Court found that the SRO improperly relied on retrospective testimony regarding the possibility of extending a 1:1 transitional paraprofessional beyond the four months provided in the Individualized Education Program (IEP). Citing recent Second Circuit precedent (R.E. and Reyes), the court ruled that such retrospective adjustments are impermissible. Due to the court's lack of educational expertise and the unclear centrality of this error to the SRO's decision, both parties' motions for summary judgment were denied, and the case was remanded to the state administrative officers for further consideration in light of the Reyes decision.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education ProgramSpecial EducationSummary JudgmentRemandState Review OfficerImpartial Hearing OfficerRetrospective TestimonyTransitional Paraprofessional
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2007

M.M. ex rel. A.M. v. New York City Department of Education Region 9

Parents M.M. and H.M. sought a modified de novo review of administrative decisions concerning their autistic daughter A.M.'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for the 2005-2006 school year, provided by the New York City Department of Education (DOE). They alleged procedural and substantive violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), claiming the IEP was inadequate and requesting tuition reimbursement for their unilateral private school placement. The Impartial Hearing Officer and State Review Officer had previously found the DOE's IEP appropriate and denied reimbursement. The District Court affirmed these administrative decisions, concluding that the DOE offered a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to A.M. and that the IDEA's pendency provision did not entitle the student to continued early intervention services during the dispute. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for reversal was denied, and the DOE's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education PlanEarly Intervention ServicesSpecial EducationAutismDue ProcessTuition ReimbursementSummary JudgmentDe Novo Review
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S.Y. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiffs, parents of R.Y., sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), challenging a State Review Officer's (SRO) decision that reversed an Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) finding. The IHO had ruled that the DOE failed to provide R.Y. a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and ordered tuition reimbursement for R.Y.'s private school, the Rebecca School. The District Court found multiple procedural violations by the DOE that cumulatively denied R.Y. a FAPE. The Court also affirmed the IHO's findings that the Rebecca School was an appropriate placement and that the equities favored the Parents. Consequently, Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was GRANTED, and the DOE's cross-motion was DENIED, entitling Plaintiffs to tuition reimbursement and attorneys' fees.

IDEAFAPEIEPDue ProcessTuition ReimbursementSpecial Education LawProcedural AdequacyParental RightsAutism Spectrum DisorderAdministrative Review
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 5,997 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational