SRO reverses IHO and awards partial reimbursement to parent

SRO 11-041: The IHO found against the parent on a private school reimbursement case. In what is an extraordinarily rare occurrence, the SRO reversed in favor of the parent holding that the CSE had inadequate evaluative information from which to develop the IEP, that the private placement was appropriate, and that the equities weighed in favor of a partial reimbursement award. The equities section is the most interesting. The SRO held that the parent had not provided adequate prior notice of the intent to seek reimbursement for the private placement, the SRO only docked the parent 25% for said failure. The SRO then found that the parents had not adequately established that they lacked the resources to front the student’s tuition costs. Thus, it appears that the SRO denied the parents request for an order that the DOE pay the private school directly; rather the SRO ordered that the DOE reimburse the parent 75% upon proof of payment of the tuition.

SDNY awards retroactive direct tuition relief

MR. and MRS. A, o/b/o D.A. v. NYC: By decision dated February 1st, 2011, SRO 09-001 was reversed by the SDNY federal court. The Court held that where parents lack the financial resources to “front” the costs of private school tuition and "where a private school is willing to enroll the student and take the risk that the parents will not be able to pay tuition costs – or will take years to do so – parents who satisfy the Burlington factors have a right to retroactive direct tuition payment relief." The original blog post follows.

SRO 09-001: This case is probably the most controversial SRO decision in years. In brief, the parent prevailed at hearing on her private school reimbursement claim. On appeal, SRO Paul Kelly found that the district failed to provide a FAPE and that the parental placement was appropriate. With respect to equities, although he did not expressly find for the parents, he stated that “I agree with the impartial hearing officer's findings that the parents cooperated with the district, participated at the CSE meeting, visited proposed placements, and notified the district in writing that they were re-enrolling the student at the Rebecca School when no placement was offered by the district.” In the hearing request, the parents apparently sought “funding” for the private placement rather than reimbursement. The IHO awarded the requested funding of the placement. The evidence cited by Kelly establishes that the parents had entered into a contract that obligated them to pay the entire freight and that they had in fact made payments. Kelly reversed the IHO award stating that “[u]nder the circumstances of this case, where the parents are not requesting reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs or direct payment for compensatory education services, I find that the parents are not entitled to funding of the student's tuition.” Kelly cites to two SRO cases in which Connors prospective funding was at issue; here, however, he does not cite to Connors. He does note, however, that the 2nd Circuit has, in fact, found that school districts may be required to directly fund pendency placements and that “courts have awarded "prospective payment" to afford access to compensatory education.” One would think that in light of the fact that the 2nd Circuit has touched on the issue of prospective payment and that a district court (Connors) has strongly suggested the availability of such relief, the SRO ought to have examined the issue more closely and provided a rationale for approving or disapproving of the right to relief. There is a dearth of analysis on the issue, however; Kelly merely laid out his version of the facts and just put the kabosh on the parents’ claim.

see also, NSBA blog article.

SRO rejects Connors claim and reimbursement claim

SRO 09-079: This case was litigated as both a reimbursement case and a Connors prospective funding case. First, SRO Paul Kelly rejected the parent’s reimbursement claim noting that although there was contract language purportedly obligating the parent to pay the school in full, no payments had been made and there was no evidence that the school would seek payment. Kelly also found that the notice of intent to make a reimbursement claim was defective in that the parent utilized a form that did not provide specific details of the parent’s concerns.

As for the Connors claim, Kelly found that it was the private school that incurred the financial burden for the child’s education going forward, that the private school has no entitlement to relief, and that the parent cannot assert a claim on behalf of a private entity that lacks standing under the IDEA to maintain a claim against a school district in its own right.

SDNY rejects parent appeal of SRO decision in Connors type case

S.W. v. NYC Bd. of Ed., 2009 WL 857549 (SDNY March 30, 2009): In affirming SRO 07-032, the SDNY(Judge Koeltl) held that the parent failed to give notice of her claim for funding of the private placement. The parents sought direct payment to the private school as opposed to reimbursement. As such, this was what is colloquially referred to in N.Y. as a “Connors” case. By deciding the case on the equities, the Court avoided having to decide the issue of whether a parent may be entitled to prospective relief in the form of direct payment to a private school, but the Court does discuss the issue and concludes that “ In a case where the equities favor such an award, there may be good reasons why direct tuition payment should be a remedy available to a needy parent, on either a prospective or retrospective basis.” This case is a must read for attorneys litigating Connors cases. There is extensive treatment of whether the parent has standing to bring such a claim. Here, the Court answered in the affirmative.

SRO reverses IHO in unusual Kildonan case

SRO 08-055: This case started out as a reimbursement case. By the time the hearing rolled around, the parents decided to continue the child in the district placement and to request prospective placement at Kildonan while challenging the appropriateness of the placement. On the last day of hearing, the parents withdrew their request for placement at Kildonan, but still sought a ruling from the IHO on the appropriateness of Kildonan, reasoning that it could give them pendency in the future. The IHO ruled for the parent; SRO Kelly reversed. He found for the parent on prong 1, but found that the parent had not established the appropriateness of Kildonan. He employed the 3 prong reimbursement analysis with no discussion as to why he was doing so in a case that had become something other than a reimbursement case. Nor did he mention or discuss Connors.