Legal Case Study for Special Education
Legal Case Study-Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.
The United States Supreme Court (1999)
Garret F. was a young man that had an accident as a young child that left him paralyzed and requiring a wheelchair for mobility and also physical care support during the day while at school. Garret’s parents were asking that the school system provide someone to assist Garret with ventilation services during his time in school. This assistance was not necessarily required to be done by a medical professional, in the past Garret’s teenage aunt completed those tasks and was not a medical professional. The School District did not want to comply with the request from Garret’s parents due to the cost that would arise from the salary for the caregiver. Garret’s parents took the School District to court and the School District fought the case all the way to the United States Supreme Court. (Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 1999)
The Supreme Court had to use the analysis of “related services” in Garret’s case as they had done with the Irving Independent School Dist. v.Tatro case because both students had similar needs that were related to medical processes however there had to be a determination if the services that they required were “related” or medical (Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 1999) (Irving Independent School District vs. Amber Tatro, 1984). The distinction between those two services is that medical services are services that are provided by a licensed physician; and related services are services that could be provided by anyone that had been trained or had the education or certification to provide the services that a student would need to have the ability to participate in school and learn. In the Tatro case that was decided in 1984, the Supreme Court upheld that the services that were provided to the student by means of catheterization could be provided by anyone that was trained to perform the task and
The United States Supreme Court (1999)
Garret F. was a young man that had an accident as a young child that left him paralyzed and requiring a wheelchair for mobility and also physical care support during the day while at school. Garret’s parents were asking that the school system provide someone to assist Garret with ventilation services during his time in school. This assistance was not necessarily required to be done by a medical professional, in the past Garret’s teenage aunt completed those tasks and was not a medical professional. The School District did not want to comply with the request from Garret’s parents due to the cost that would arise from the salary for the caregiver. Garret’s parents took the School District to court and the School District fought the case all the way to the United States Supreme Court. (Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 1999)
The Supreme Court had to use the analysis of “related services” in Garret’s case as they had done with the Irving Independent School Dist. v.Tatro case because both students had similar needs that were related to medical processes however there had to be a determination if the services that they required were “related” or medical (Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 1999) (Irving Independent School District vs. Amber Tatro, 1984). The distinction between those two services is that medical services are services that are provided by a licensed physician; and related services are services that could be provided by anyone that had been trained or had the education or certification to provide the services that a student would need to have the ability to participate in school and learn. In the Tatro case that was decided in 1984, the Supreme Court upheld that the services that were provided to the student by means of catheterization could be provided by anyone that was trained to perform the task and
References: Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 (United States Supreme Court March 3, 1999). Irving Independent School District vs. Amber Tatro, 468 (United States Supreme Court July 5, 1984).