Lexplug logoLexplug

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro

Supreme Court of the United States
82 L. Ed. 2d 664, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 152, 468 US 883 (1984)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Education of the Handicapped Act, services that are necessary for a handicapped child to attend school and benefit from special education are considered 'related services' that a school must provide, so long as they are not 'medical services' that must be performed by a licensed physician.


Facts:

  • Amber Tatro, an 8-year-old girl, was born with spina bifida, which resulted in a neurogenic bladder that prevented her from emptying it voluntarily.
  • To prevent kidney injury, Amber required a procedure called clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) every three to four hours.
  • CIC is a simple procedure that can be performed in a few minutes by a layperson with less than an hour of training.
  • Irving Independent School District agreed to provide special education for Amber.
  • The school district developed an individualized education program (IEP) for Amber, but it made no provision for school personnel to administer CIC during school hours.

Procedural Posture:

  • Amber Tatro's parents (respondents) unsuccessfully pursued administrative remedies to compel the Irving Independent School District to provide CIC services.
  • The Tatros sued the school district (petitioner) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking an injunction.
  • The District Court denied the injunction, concluding that CIC was not a 'related service' under federal law.
  • The Tatros, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case.
  • On remand, the District Court ordered the school district to provide CIC and awarded compensatory damages and attorney's fees.
  • The school district, as appellant, appealed again to the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's order.
  • The Irving Independent School District petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Education of the Handicapped Act require a school district to provide a handicapped child with clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) during the school day as a 'related service' necessary for the child to benefit from special education?


Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Burger

Yes, the Education of the Handicapped Act requires the school district to provide clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) as a 'related service.' A two-part test determines if a service is a required 'related service': it must be a supportive service required to assist a handicapped child to benefit from special education, and it must not be an excluded medical service. CIC is a supportive service because without it, Amber cannot attend school and thus cannot benefit from her special education. Furthermore, CIC is not an excluded 'medical service' because, according to Department of Education regulations, 'medical services' are limited to services provided by a licensed physician. Since CIC can be administered by a school nurse or a trained layperson, it qualifies as a 'school health service' which the district is obligated to provide. However, relief is not available under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act when the Education of the Handicapped Act provides a sufficient remedy, so the award of attorney's fees under the Rehabilitation Act is reversed.


Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Brennan

Yes, CIC is a required related service under the Education of the Handicapped Act. However, the majority is wrong to deny relief under the Rehabilitation Act. For the reasons stated in his dissent in Smith v. Robinson, the award of attorney's fees under the Rehabilitation Act should have been affirmed.


Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Stevens

Yes, the Court correctly determined that CIC is a required 'related service' under the Education of the Handicapped Act. However, the Court should not have reached the issue of the Rehabilitation Act. Since the school district's petition for certiorari only challenged the merits of the relief and not the award of attorney's fees, and since the Court's holding on the EHA supports the judgment on the merits, there was no need to address or reverse the part of the judgment related to the Rehabilitation Act.



Analysis:

This case significantly clarified the scope of a school district's responsibility under the Education of the Handicapped Act (now the IDEA). By drawing a bright-line rule that excluded 'medical services' are only those that require a physician, the Court ensured that children with manageable health needs could not be excluded from public schools. This decision broadened access to education for children with significant disabilities, shifting the focus from the nature of the service to the qualifications of the person providing it. It established the principle that if a service is essential for a child to be physically present at school, and it does not require a doctor, the school is likely responsible for providing it.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"