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

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

This case involves parents (J.M. and N.M.) and their child (L.M.) seeking tuition reimbursement from the New York City Department of Education (DOE) for L.M.'s private school tuition at the Rebecca School for the 2011-12 school year. L.M., diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder and classified with Autism, was offered a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) by the DOE, including an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and placement at the Hungerford School. The parents rejected the placement and unilaterally re-enrolled L.M. privately. The court, deferring to the State Review Officer's (SRO) decision over the Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) decision, found that the IEP's procedural deficiencies regarding the transition plan did not deprive L.M. of a FAPE when the IEP was viewed as a whole. Furthermore, the court determined that the parents' objections to the Hungerford School (size, noise, socialization concerns) were impermissibly speculative and did not demonstrate that Hungerford could not implement the IEP. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding that the DOE had offered L.M. a FAPE.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)Individualized Education Program (IEP)Tuition ReimbursementSpecial EducationAdministrative ReviewSummary JudgmentProcedural DeficienciesPlacement ChallengesAuditory Sensitivities
References
43
Case No. 12 Civ. 3763(AJN)
Regular Panel Decision

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

Plaintiffs R.B. and M.L.B., parents of D.B., brought an action against the New York City Department of Education (DOE) seeking judicial review of an administrative decision. The State Review Officer (SRO) had previously affirmed an Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) decision, which found D.B.'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) sufficient under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The parents sought tuition reimbursement for D.B.'s enrollment in a private school, challenging the IEP's procedural and substantive adequacy and the appropriateness of the DOE's assigned school placement. The District Court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the Plaintiffs' motion, concluding that the IEP was both procedurally and substantively adequate and the assigned school appropriate, thereby denying tuition reimbursement.

Education LawIndividuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education PlanState Review OfficerImpartial Hearing OfficerDue Process ComplaintTuition ReimbursementSummary JudgmentProcedural Adequacy
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C.U. v. New York City Department of Education

This case involves parents C.U. and N.U., on behalf of their child G.U. (the Student), suing the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Student, diagnosed with autism and a severe seizure disorder, required a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The parents sought reimbursement for private school tuition after the DOE failed to provide a timely IEP and an opportunity to evaluate the recommended public school placement. The District Court found that the DOE committed procedural violations by not providing the IEP before the school year and denying parents the right to evaluate the proposed school. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, reversing the State Review Officer's decision, and ordered tuition reimbursement.

IDEAFAPEIEPSpecial EducationDisability RightsTuition ReimbursementProcedural ViolationsSubstantive AdequacyParental ParticipationSeizure Disorder
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A.H. Ex Rel. J.H. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiff A.H., on behalf of J.H., challenged the New York City Department of Education (DOE)'s individualized education program (IEP) and sought tuition reimbursement for private schooling. J.H., a child with learning disabilities, was placed by his mother in a private school after rejecting the DOE's public school offer. The court found the DOE's IEP procedurally and substantively deficient, specifically lacking a special education teacher on the evaluation team and failing to accommodate J.H.'s transition difficulties outside the classroom. However, tuition reimbursement was denied due to equitable considerations, citing the plaintiff's unilateral decision to enroll J.H. in private school without fully engaging with the DOE's process. A declaratory judgment was granted to the plaintiff, confirming the IEP's deficiencies to inform future educational planning for J.H.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)Special Education ServicesIndividualized Education Program (IEP)Tuition ReimbursementDue Process HearingState Review Officer DecisionDeclaratory JudgmentNeuropsychological EvaluationLeast Restrictive EnvironmentProcedural Violations
References
29
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
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

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

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

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
Showing 1-10 of 28 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