Carlena Lowell 1

SEI 514 Activity #1: Court Case

Advocacy/Public Policy: Research and Discuss a Court Case
Carlena Lowell
SEI 514
February 23, 2014












Carlena Lowell 2
SEI 514 Activity #1: Court Case
On July 5, 1984 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in
favor of the Tatro family in the court case, Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
468 U.S. 883. The prominent issue of this case was whether or not clean intermittent
catheterization (CIC) is a related service on an individualized education program (IEP) by
determining whether it is a.) a supportive service, and b.) a medical service (Wright & Wright,
2007).
In 1979, three-and-a-half year old Amber, had an IEP in the Irvine Independent
School District which stated she would attend an early childhood program and be
provided with special services including physical and occupational therapies. The IEP,
however, made no accommodations for school personnel to administer the CIC she
required due to her diagnosis of spina bifida. Without CIC every three to four hours,
Amber was in danger of kidney damage (Wright & Wright, 2007).
Ambers parents wanted her to be able to attend the early childhood program for
the full school day, which was not possible without CIC. They tried through
administrative avenues and due process to push for someone to administer the CIC
during the school day, to no avail. In October 1979 they took their case to district court
arguing that CIC is a related service under the Education of All Handicapped Children
Act (1975). The district court denied the parents request, citing that the CIC was not a
related service because it did not pertain to the childs education (Wright & Wright,
2007)
The parents appealed the district courts decision. The appellate court sided with
the parents and found that CIC is indeed a related service because without it the child
would not be able to attend a full day of school, hence effecting her education.
Carlena Lowell 3
SEI 514 Activity #1: Court Case
Furthermore, they cited that because the education district refused to provide CIC, they
excluded the child from a federally funded educational program, which was in fact in
violation of 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The district court followed through with the
remand and ultimately decided that because the presence of a doctor was not
necessary for CIC, it was not a medical service and, therefore, ruled the team to modify
the IEP to include CIC during school hours (Wright & Wright, 2007).
A bright-line test was created as a result of this court case (Bartlett, 2000, p.
216). This rule was applied in the similarly ruled 1999 court case, Cedar Rapids
Community School District v. Garrett F. 526 U.S.66 (Gerl, 2007). According to Mid-
Continent Comprehensive Center (MC3) (2013), the bright-light test derived from this
particular case is a three-pronged approach to differentiate between whether a related
service is medical or school health. The three items in this bright-line test are:
1. the child must qualify for services under IDEA,
2. the service is necessary for free appropriate public education (FAPE), and
3. the service must not require a physician.
It was found that CIC is a related service, but not a medical service; therefore,
the school district must accommodate it. Related services include medical services and
now school health services/school nurse services. Medical service is a related service
only for the purposes of diagnosis and evaluation or when a service must be provided
by a physician. School health services/school nurse services includes, but is not limited
to, CIC, tracheostomy management, and administering and dispensing medication
(National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities [NICHCY], 2010). CIC
Carlena Lowell 4
SEI 514 Activity #1: Court Case
does not require the physical presence of a physician, nor does it require in depth
training. If the presence of a physician is not required for a service, and if without the
service the child will be excluded from FAPE, training for the service must be provided
to personnel to accommodate the childs needs.
This stands true for Part C services as well. As identified in the Maine Unified
Special Education Regulation Birth to Age Twenty (2013), health services are provided
to children birth through age two, which included but is not limited to CIC, tube feeding,
and consultation with physicians. Similar to the related services of Part B, health
services does not include services that require a physician (i.e. a surgical procedure),
the devices required for medical care, or immunizations (pp. 125-126).
It is my opinion the appellate court was accurate in their decision to not identify
CIC as a medical service. I was pleased to read the district court reexamined their
decision, thereby requiring the educational system to provide CIC to Amber. This court
case was one of the forerunning cases in ensuring agencies provide necessary services
for a child to participate in FAPE. It seems to me, a major issue in this case was the
interpretation of the regulations, namely the differences in support services and medical
services. It is critical for all professionals working with children and their families
understand what they are responsible for regarding the provision of services.




Carlena Lowell 5
SEI 514 Activity #1: Court Case
References
Bartlett, L. (2000). Medical service: The disputed related service. The Journal of Special
Education 33(4), 215-223, 247.
Gerl, J. (2007, October 22). Special education law 101Part III. [Web log comment].
Retrieved from http://specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/special-
education-law-101-part-iii.html
Maine Department of Education. (2013, July 19). Early intervention services for young
children B-2 and related services for children three to twenty. Maine Unified
Special Education Regulation. Augusta, ME: Maine Department of Education.
Mid-Continent Comprehensive Center. (2013). Knowledge bases>Irving independent
school district v. Tatro. Retrieved from
http://www.mc3edsupport.org/community/knowledgebases/irving-independent-
school-district-v-tatro-847.html
National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. (2010). Related services.
Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/schoolage/iep/iepcontents/relatedservices
Wright, P. W. D. & Wright, P. D. (2007). The Supreme Court of the United States 468
U.S. 883 (1984). Retrieved from
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.tatro.htm