Uhr v. East Greenbush Cent. Sch. Dist.
94 N.Y.2d 32, 720 N.E.2d 886, 698 N.Y.S.2d 609 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private right of action for violation of a statutory duty will not be implied if it is inconsistent with the legislative scheme, particularly where the legislature has provided for an administrative enforcement mechanism and has shown an intent to immunize the regulated entity from liability.
Facts:
- During the 1992-1993 school year, a seventh-grade student at Goff Middle School, operated by the East Greenbush Central School District, was screened for scoliosis with negative results.
- During the following 1993-1994 school year, the student was allegedly not screened for scoliosis by the school district.
- In March 1995, while the student was a ninth grader, a school nurse screened her and found that she had scoliosis.
- An orthopedic specialist determined that the student's scoliosis had progressed to the point where surgery was required.
- The specialist opined that if the condition had been diagnosed earlier, it could have been treated with braces instead of surgery.
- The student underwent surgery to correct the scoliosis in July 1995.
Procedural Posture:
- The student and her parents (plaintiffs) sued the East Greenbush Central School District and its Board of Education in the New York Supreme Court, which is the state's trial court.
- The District moved for summary judgment to dismiss the case.
- The Supreme Court granted the District’s motion for summary judgment.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
- The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, granted the plaintiffs leave to appeal.
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 New York Education Law § 905(1), which requires schools to conduct annual scoliosis screenings for students, create an implied private right of action for a student who suffered harm allegedly due to a school's failure to perform the screening?
Opinions:
Majority - Rosenblatt, J.
No, New York Education Law § 905(1) does not create an implied private right of action. To determine if a statute implies a private right of action, the court applies the three-part test from Sheehy v. Big Flats Community Day. While the plaintiff satisfies the first prong (being a member of the class the statute was enacted to benefit) and the second prong (a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose of early detection), the claim fails on the third prong. A private right of action is inconsistent with the legislative scheme for several reasons. First, the legislature created a potent administrative enforcement mechanism by charging the Commissioner of Education with enforcing the statute and authorizing the Commissioner to withhold public funds from noncompliant districts. Second, the statute's immunity provision (§ 905(2)) and the legislature's decision not to amend it after court interpretations suggest an intent to shield school districts from liability related to the screening program. Finally, the legislative history indicates a strong concern with minimizing the financial impact on school districts, which is inconsistent with exposing them to tort liability.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the critical importance of the third prong of the Sheehy test for determining whether a statute implies a private right of action in New York. The court's decision demonstrates that even if a plaintiff is in the protected class and a private lawsuit would promote the statute's goals, the claim will fail if it conflicts with the broader legislative scheme. The presence of an alternative, administrative enforcement mechanism and legislative indications of an intent to limit liability (like immunity clauses) are powerful evidence that the legislature did not intend to allow private lawsuits. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to sue government entities for failing to perform statutory duties unless the legislature has explicitly authorized such suits.
Unlock the full brief for Uhr v. East Greenbush Cent. Sch. Dist.