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

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

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
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

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

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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A.D. v. Board of Education of the City School District

Plaintiffs A.D. and M.D., on behalf of their minor child E.D., brought an action under the IDEA to review a State Review Officer's (SRO) decision. The SRO had reversed an Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) award of tuition reimbursement for E.D.'s attendance at the private Rebecca School, despite agreeing that the New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The District Court reversed the SRO's finding that Rebecca School was an inappropriate placement, concluding that the school's individualized program was designed to meet E.D.'s unique needs. Consequently, the Court ordered the DOE to reimburse tuition for July 2007 through June 2008, totaling $62,590, but denied reimbursement for July and August 2008 due to unexhausted administrative remedies. The Court also granted defendants' motion to strike certain evidentiary materials submitted by plaintiffs.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActIDEAFree Appropriate Public EducationFAPETuition ReimbursementPrivate School PlacementSpecial EducationAutism Spectrum DisorderImpartial Hearing OfficerState Review Officer
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

I.L. ex rel. Taylor v. Knox County Board of Education

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses various motions in a case brought by Donna Taylor on behalf of her daughter, I.L., against the Tennessee Department of Education and Knox County Schools. The claims involve alleged violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Tennessee Special Education Behavioral Supports Act. The court dismissed Taylor's IDEA grievance-procedure interference claim and granted summary judgment to the Department of Education on all remaining claims against it. However, regarding Knox County Schools, the court sided with Taylor on the IDEA-Supports Act claim due to improper isolation techniques (gym-mat fencings). The court ordered remedies against Knox County Schools, including the implementation of I.L.'s individualized education program (IEP) and behavior intervention plan, a prohibition on unauthorized isolation, and four hours of makeup education for I.L.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Rehabilitation ActSpecial Education Behavioral Supports ActLeast Restrictive Environment (LRE)Individualized Education Program (IEP)Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)Disability DiscriminationStudent IsolationDue Process Rights
References
94
Case No. 07 Civ. 2265
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2008

MM Ex Rel. AM v. NY. CITY DEPT. OF EDUC. REG.

This case involves M.M. and H.M., parents of A.M., an autistic child, appealing administrative decisions regarding A.M.'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for the 2005-2006 school year under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The plaintiffs sought a modified de novo review, alleging procedural and substantive violations by the New York City Department of Education (DOE). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted the DOE's cross-motion for summary judgment, upholding the administrative findings that the DOE offered a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). Additionally, the court concluded that A.M. was not entitled to reimbursement for private school placement or continued early intervention services during the pendency of the dispute.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education PlanEarly Intervention ServicesState Review OfficerImpartial Hearing OfficerAutism Spectrum DisorderSpecial EducationPendency ProvisionTuition Reimbursement
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 3,337 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