### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J anu ary 26, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 04- 1031 4
D. C. Docket N o. 00-00366 CV -2-H L- 5 CASSANDRA ORTEGA, In div idu al ly , and a s th e pare nt, guard ian, and n ex t fr ie nd o f A nti one O rt eg a, de ce as ed , Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us BIBB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, D ef en dant- Appe llant.
Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of G eo rg ia (J an ua ry26, 200 5) Be fo re D U BIN A , BL A CK and KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. DU BIN A, Circuit Judge:2

This is a tra gic case involvin g the death of a four-y ear- old bo y . The district
co u rten t er ed an o rd erd en yin g d ef en d an t/ ap p el l an tBi b b Co u n t y Sc h o o l Di s t ri ct ’s (“ School District”) m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent on plain tiff/appellee Ca ssandra Ortega’ s (“ Ortega”) c laim brought under the Individ uals with Disabilities E duc at ionA ct

( “ ID E A ”) , 20 U
. S. C. § 14 00 e t se q. W e gr an te d th e Sc hool D istri ct ’ s pe tit ionf

or an in te rl oc uto ry

appe al pur suant t o 28 U
. S. C. § 12 92( b) , and
w e re ve rs e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r be ca use O rt eg a ha s no va lid

c au se of a ct ion fo r to rt- li ke rel ie f un de r th e IDEA. I. BACKG ROUND A. F ac ts Ant io ne Orte ga (“ Ant io ne ”) was bo rn pre m atur el y on Aug us t 1 4, 1 99 4. During the first four m onth s of his life, A ntion e w as on a ventilator. A fter doctors
re m ove d A nti one f

ro m the ve nti la tor , the y

pe rf orm ed atr ac he ost om

y , w hic h is the placem ent of a tra cheotom y tube in the trachea or w indp ipe. I n 199 6, doctors
re m ove d th e tr ac he oto m

y tub e. I n 19 97, S ch ool D istri ct pe rs onne l m et

w ith Antione to determ ine whether he wa s eligible for special education services. They
ev al ua te d A nti one and d et er m ine d th at

he w as e lig ibl e fo r spe ci al e duc at ion services in the are a of significant developm ental delay
. An individ ualized education prog ram

team (“ IE P team ”) m et on October 30, 1997 , and develop ed an3

i n d i v i du a l i z e de du c a t i o n p r o g r a m ( “I E P ” ) f o r A n t i o n e . I n N o v e mb e r

o f th a ts a me y ear, Antione enrolled in the special needs pre-kindergarten program at the Butler Earl y Ch il dh oo d C en te r. At th atti m e, Ant io ne di d n ot ha ve a tr ach eo to m y tu be
. A nti one sto ppe d a tte ndi ng s ch ool be fo re the Ch ri stm as hol iday s in199 7 and d id not return to scho ol that schoo l y ear. A do ct orcert ifi edth atAnt io ne was abl e to return t o s ch oo l i n Au gu st 19 98
. Whe n A nti one r et

ur ne d to sc hool , he ha d atr ac he oto m y tub e. G lor iaJoh nson (“Ms . J o h n s o n ”) , An t i o n e’s t ea ch er , q u es t i o n ed Ort eg a ab o u tAn t i o n e’s tr ac he ost om

y and r ec ei ve d in str

uc tio ns f ro m O rt eg a ab out

c ar ing f or it
. Ms
. John son tol d O rt eg a that sh e w oul d c onsu lt w iththe sc hool nur se about any questio ns she m ight h ave concerning the tracheostom y . Ortega stated in her de posi tio n th at

she le ft A nti one a t sc hool w iththe a ssuranc e that the sc hool ha d a nurse on staff, and Antione would be cared f or. On h i s s ec o n dd ay at s ch o o l , An t i o n e w as p l ayi n g o n th e s ch o o l ’s play gr ound

e qui pm en t a s hi s te ac he r, Ms
. Joh nson , w at ch ed him
. A s A nti one st art edto co m e d own th e st ep s o f th e p la tfo rm wher e h e was pl ay in g, h e co ll ap se d. Ms
. Joh nsonand anothe r para pr of es sio na l c ar

ri ed A nti one ins ide , w hil e Ms
. John son’ s para

pr of es sio na l r anins ide the sc hool to ge t he lp. Whe n th ey la id Antione down, Ms. Johns on no ticed that Antione’ s tracheotom y tube was4

dis lod ge d. Ms
. Joh nsontoo k A nti one ’ s pu lse , and the sc hool ’ s ph y sic al the ra pis t be gan do ing m outh- to- m outh r es usc itatio n. S ch ool e m plo y ee s c al le d 91 1, and the ope rator ins tr uc te d th e em

plo y ee s to c hange f

ro m m outh- to- m outh r es usc itatio n to
m outh -to-stom a. School officials claim ed that the operator also instructed them not to atte m pt t o r ei nse rt

the tr ac he oto m

y tub e. P ar am ed ic s arr ive d th er ea ft er and at te m pt edem erg en cy

effo rts be fo re t ak in g An ti on e to th e em erg en cy roo m . Shortly after he arr ived at the em ergency room , e m ergency

room personnel pr on ou nc edAnt io ne de ad . The ca us e o f de at h was asp hyxi at io n. B. P roc ed

ural H istory O rt eg a, ind ivi dua lly , and a s th e pare nt, guard ian, and n ex t f ri en d of Antione, f

iled a six-count com

plaint against the School District and other defendants seeking to rec over for A ntion e’ s alleged wr ongful d eath. Am ong o ther cl ai m s, O rt eg a as se rt ed

that sh e w as e nti tle d to r ec ove r fo r A nti one ’ s de ath because the Sc hool District a llegedly violated the IDE A by

failing to have a pe rs on c ap ab le of

r ei nse rt ing A nti one ’ s tr ac he oto m y tub e at the Bu tle r E ar ly Childho od Center at the tim e of the incident in questi on. T he School District
m ov edforsu m

m ary jud gm en t wi th res pe ctto all cla im s as se rte d b y Orte ga . Co nc er nin g O rt eg a’ s I D E A c la im , the S ch ool D istri ct arg ue d th at

any c la im O rt eg a m igh t have und er

the I D E A w as m oot ed

by A nti one ’ s de ath and tha t the5

School District did not v iolate the ID EA
. Alter natively , the S chool District
as se rt ed that O rt eg a did

not e sta bli sh an A rt ic le I II c as e or c ontro ve rs y

be ca use the onl y r el ie f O rt eg a soug ht o n he r ID E A c la im w as c ost s and atto rn ey ’ s f ee s. Su bse que ntl y , the dis tr ic t c ourt e nte re d an or de r de ny ing the S ch ool Dis tri ct ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t wi th res pe ctto Orte ga ’s IDEA clai m . The district court deter

m ined that Ortega’ s claim wa s not m oot because, even thou gh m onetary

dam ages are not available und er the I DE A, a district court has discretionary

authority to “ grant such relief a s the court determ ines is approp riate. ” 20 U. S. C. § 141 5(i)(2)( B)(iii). T he district court determ ined that approp riate r elief in th is cas e wou ldbe no m in al da m ag es forOrte ga if s he su ccee de d o n h er IDEA claim
. The district court also determ ined that a questio n of fact e xisted whether the School District violated the IDE A bec ause it did no t have a nurse or other qua lif ie d pe rs on c ap ab le of

r ei nse rt ing A nti one ’ s tr ac he oto m y tub e on the pr em ise s of

the sc hool a t the ti m e of

the inc ide nt. The S chool District filed a Motion for Rec onsid eration with re spect to that part of the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r de ny ing it s m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e Mot ionf or Re co nsi de ratio n and g rante d th e Sc hool District’ s request for a perm issiv e interlocutory appeal. The School District then fi le d ape tit ionf

or pe rm iss ionto ap pe al w iththi s c ourt, w hic h w e gr an te d.The I DEA wa s amende d rec ently by t h e Individuals with Disabilit ies Education 1 Improvement Ac t of 2004, Pub. L
. No. 108-446, § 302. The amendment takes e ffe ct J uly 1, 2005, and does not impac t this case. 6 II . ISSUE 1. Whe the r tort- lik e m one y dam ag es are a va ila

ble und er the I ndi vid

ua ls
w ithD isa bil iti es E duc at ionA ct .

III. STA ND AR

D O F REVIE W T his c ourt r ev ie w s de novo the district court’ s order deny ing su m m ary jud gm en t, ap pl y in g t he same sta nd ard s t ha t g ov ern edth e d is tri ctco ur t’s d eci si on . LaChance v. Duffy’s D raft House, Inc. , 146 F. 3d 83 2, 834-35 (11th Cir. 1998 ). IV. D ISCU SSION The I DE A wa s enacted, in part, “ to ensure that all children with disabilit ies

1 have available to them

a fr ee appropriate public education that em phasizes special educ at io n a nd rel at edser vi ces de si gn edto m eetth ei r un ique ne ed s.” 2 0 U.S.C. § 1400 (d)(1)( A)
. Consist ent with this purpo se, the I DE A a utho rizes f

ederal financial assistance to States that agre e to provide dis abled children with special educ at io n a nd rel at edser vi ces . See 20 U
. S. C. § 14 11. T he te rm “ re la te d se rv ic es ” inc lud es “ tr an spor

ta tio n, and s uc h de ve lop m en ta l, c or re ct ive , and o the r supp ortiv e se rv ic es ( inc lud ing
. . . m ed ic al se rv ic es , e xc ep t tha t su chm ed ic al se rv ic es sha ll be fo r dia gnos tic and e va luatio n purp ose s on ly ) as m ay be r equir ed

to as sis t a

c hil d7

with a disability

to benefit from

special education.” 20 U .S .C. § 1401 (22). In oth er w or ds, r el at ed

se rv ic es are tho se “ that e nable adis ab le d c hil d to r em ai n in
sc hool dur ing the day

[ to] pr ovi de the stu de nt w iththe m eanin gf ul a cc es s to education that Con gress envisio ned.” Ced ar Rap id s C mty. S ch . Dis t. v. Ga rr et

F. , 526 U
. S. 66, 73, 119 S
. Ct
. 992 , 997 ( 1999 ) (c itatio n and i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks
om itted). U nde r the I D E A , sc hool s e va luate e ac h c hil d w ithadis ab ili ty to de ve lop and im plem ent an IE P for each child, specif y ing education al and developm ental go al s fo r th e ch il d. Se e ge ne ral ly20 U
. S. C. § 14 14. A n I E P te am c onsi sts of
se ve ra l pe opl e, inc lud ing the c hil d’ s r eg ular ed uc at ionte ac he r, aspe ci al e duc at ion teacher , a local education agency

official, the child’ s parents, and when appropriate, the c hild. 20 U. S. C. § 141 4(d)(1)(B ). T he IE P team develops each ch ild ’ s I E P, w hic h m

ust inc lud e a state m en t of

the c hil d’ s pr es en t l ev el s of ed uc at ion al pe rf

orm an ce ; a

state m en t of

annua l go al s, inc lud ing lon g and s hortterm objec tives; a statem ent of the specific special e ducation andrelate d services to b e pr ovi de d to the c hil d; a state m en t of

the tr an sit ionse rv ic es ne ed ed by the ch ild , w he re appl ic ab le ; the pr oj ec te d date on whic h th e se rv ic es w ill be ginand the ir anti ci pa te d duratio n; and o bj ec tiv e cr ite ri a an d e va luatio n pr oc ed ur es to be
us edto de te rm in e whe th er t he in st ru ct io na l o bjec ti ve s ar e b ei ng ach ie ve d. See 208

U.S.C. § 1 41 4( d) (1 )(A). The lo cal educ at io na l ag en cy sh al l en su re t ha t t he IEP te am r ev ie w s th e ch ild ’ s I E P pe ri odi ca lly , but not le ss than annua lly , to de te rm ine whether the child is achievin g the annual go als. 20 U .S .C. § 1414 (d)(4). The IDEA als o g ran ts pa ren ts an d s tu de nt s ce rta in pro cedur al rig ht s. See ge ne ral ly20 U
. S. C. § 14 15. F or e xa m ple , w he n pare nts are not sa tis fi ed w iththe IE P, they m ay file a com

plaint with the schoo l district. 20 U. S. C. §§ 141 5(b)(6), (k )( 6)
. E ith er

the loc al or

state e duc at ion al a ge nc y r es olv es the c om

pla int by
co nduc tin g an im

part ia l du e pr oc es s he ar ing
. 20 U
. S. C. § 14 15( f)
. Aparty not satisfied with the decision of the hearing officer m ay bring a civil suit in federa l district court. 20 U. S. C. §§ 14 15(i)(2)-( 3). O n a ppe al , the S ch ool D istri ct c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de nyin g i ts m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t b ecau se Orte ga ’s cla im un de r th e IDEA is m oot be ca use of A nti one ’ s de ath. T he S ch ool D istri ct a lso arg ue s th at

O rt eg a did not e sta bli sh an A rt ic le I II c as e or c ontro ve rs y

be ca use the onl y

r el ie f O rt eg a soug ht o n he r ID E A c la im w as c ost s and atto rn ey ’ s f ee s. W e ag re e w iththe Sc hool D istri ct

that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing the S ch ool D istri ct ’ s m oti on fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t be ca

use O rt eg a cannot

e sta bli sh an A rt ic le I II c as e or co nt ro ve rs y .9

O rt eg a doe s no t have ac ogni za ble I D E A c la im
. A lth oughthe I D E A is sil en t a bout the a va ila

bil ity of tor t- lik e dam ag es , “ [t ] ort- lik e da m ag es are sim ply inconsi stent with ID EA ’ s statuto ry schem e. ” Se lle rs v . Sc h. B d. of the Ci tyof M anas sas , 141 F
. 3d 5 24, 527 ( 4thCi r. 199 8)
. “ T he pur pose of the I D E A is to provide education al services, not com pensation for per sonal injury , and a dam ages re m edy – a s c ontra ste d w ithr ei m bur se m en t of

e xpe nse s – i s f

undam en ta lly inconsi stent with this go al.” Polera v. Bd. of Educ. , 288 F. 3d 47 8, 486 (2d Cir. 2002 ). “ T he I D E A ’ s c en tr al m ec hanis m f or the r em edy ing of

pe rc ei ve d harm s is for pare nts to s eek changes to a student’s program .” Id
. at 4 83
. T he I D E A m an da te s th at

the S ch ool D istri ct

pr ovi de af

re e ap pr opr ia te publ ic e duc at ionf

or adis ab le d c hil d. T he “ ID E A pr ovi de s apanopl y of pr oc ed ur al r igh ts t o pare nts to en sur e the ir inv olv em en t i n de ci sio ns a bout the ir disabled child ’ s education.” Se lle rs , 14 1 F .3dat 5 27 . As no te d e arl ie r, th e IDEA spe ci fi ca lly

se ts f orth p ro ce dur es by

w hic h sc hool of

fi ci al s are to ab ide in or de r to pr ov id e a d is ab le d c hi ldwit h a free ap pr op ria te pu bl ic educ at io n. See 20 U. S. C. §§ 1 414, 141 5. “ T he pur pose of the se pr oc ed

ur al m ec hanis m s is to pr es er ve the right to a free appropriate public education .” Se lle rs , 141 F
. 3d at 52 7. A lth ough the I D E A pr ovi de s vari ous ty pe s of r em ed ie s f

or pla int if fs - inc lud ing r es tit

uti on for som e pare ntal expenses, com pensatory education for students , and procedural10

rem ed ie s –th e st atut e d oe s n ot pro vi de to rt- li ke rel ie f. Fur th erm or e, th e IDEA high light s other statutes as pos sible avenues for recovery , stating the ID EAdoes not “ re str ic t or

li m it the r igh ts, pr oc ed

ur es , and r em ed ie s ava ila ble und er the Constitu tion, the Am ericans with Disabilities Act of 1990 [42 U. S. C.A . § 12101 et seq.] , title Vof the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [29 U. S. C.A . § 791 et seq.] , or other Fed eral laws pro te ct in g t he rig ht s o f ch il dr en wit h d is ab il it ie s.” 2 0 U.S.C. § 14 15 (l)
. T hus, w e ag re e w ithour

sis te r ci rc uit s th at

the “ ID E A ’ s pr im ar

y pur pose is to e nsur e [a

f re e ap pr opr ia te pub lic e duc at ion ] , not to se rv e as ator

t- lik e
m echanism

for com pensating personal injury .” Nieves- Marquez v. P uerto Rico , 35 3 F .3d10 8, 1 25 (1s t Ci r. 20 03 ). Se e W itt e v. Clark

Co unt y Sc h. D ist
. , 197 F
. 3d 1271 , 127 5 ( 9thCi r. 199 9) ( not ing that m one tary dam ag es are “ not

‘ re lie f that i s av ai la ble ’ und er

the I D E A ”) ; Ch arl ie F

. v . B d. of E

duc
. of Sk ok ie Sc h. D ist
. , 98 F. 3d 9 89, 991 ( 7thCi r. 199 6) ( “ [W ] e co nc lud e that dam ag es are not ‘ re lie f that i s available under’ the ID EA
. This is the norm for social-w elfar e program s that specify benefits in kind at public expense, w hether m edical car e or housing or, unde r the I D E A , e duc at ion
. ”) ; He idemann v. R other , 84 F. 3d 10 21, 1033 (8th Cir. 1996 ) (holding th at “ general and punitiv e dam ages for the ty pes of injuries a lleged by pla int if fs are not a va ila ble und er the I D E A ”) ; se e als o G ea n v . H attaw ay , 330B y de c idi ngthat th e I DE A p ro vid e s n o v a lid c a us e of a c tio n f or tor t- lik e re lie f, we are , in 2 other words, deter

mining that there is no impl ied private rig ht of ac tion in the statute. See A lexande r v. Sandoval , 5 32 U. S. 2 75 , 1 21 S. Ct . 2 8 ( 20 01 ) ( c lari fy ingthe a pp ro a c h c ourt s a

re ob lig ate d to follow in determiningwhether to imply a private rig ht of action from a statute). Howeve r, the pa rties did no t a dd re ss thi s iss ue , and we do no t a dd re ss iss ue s that w e re no t r a ise d a nd argue d o n a

pp e a l. O’Neal v. G onzalez , 839 F.2d 1437, 1440 ( 11th Cir. 1988). We do note that had we followed the dictates of Sandoval

in this case, the r esult would have be en the same. 11 F. 3d 75 8, 774 (6th Cir. 2003) (“ How ever, [the district court’ s] discretion to awar d
m onetary dam ages under this statu te extends onl y to restitutio n for m oney

that shou ld have been paid bythe state for e ducational services – not to ‘ general da m ag es . ’ ”) ; B abi cz

v . Sc h. B d. O

f B row ard Co unt

y , 135 F
. 3d 1 420, 142 2 n. 10 (1 1thCi r. 199 8) ( not ing in dic tathat “ [i ] m pli ci t i n th is l eg al str at eg y to av oid ID EAis an apparent desire f or com pensatory dam ages not available und er IDEA”). Be ca use w e hol d th at

the I D E A doe s no t pr ovi de ac au se of a ct ionf or tortlik e re lie f, O rt eg a ha s no va lid c au se of a ct ion
. H en ce , she doe s no t pr es en t the

2
co ur t wi th a “ cas e” o r “ co nt ro ve rs y ” u nd er Art ic le III, § 2 o f th e U.S. Co ns ti tu ti on . A rt ic le I II , § 2
en ab le s th e j udi ci al de partm en t t o r ec ei ve j ur isd ic tio n to the f ull e xte nt o f the c onst itu tio n, law s, and tre at ie s of the U nit ed

S ta te s, w he n any

que sti on re spe ct ing the m

sha ll as sum e suc h af

orm that the j udi ci al pow er

is ca pable of a ct ing on i t. T ha t po w er is ca pable of a ct ing onl y

w he n th e subj ec t i s subm itt ed to it by aparty w ho a sse rt s hi s r igh ts i n th e fo rm pr es cr ibe d by law. It then becom es a ca se, and the cons titutio n declares, that the j udicial pow er sha ll ex te nd t o a ll ca se s ari sin g un de r the c onst itu tio n, law s, and tre at ie s o f th e Uni te d S ta te s.12

O sborn v . B ank

of U
. S. , 22 U .S . ( 9 Wheat.) 738, 819 (182 4) (Mar shall, C. J.). If a fe de ra l l awdoe s no t pr ovi de ac au se of a ct ion , the n apla int if

f cannot va lid ly in vo ke fed eral juri sd ic ti on , and th us no “ cas e” o r “ co nt ro ve rs y ” ari se s. Jensen v. M its ch el e Co ntrac tin g C

o. , 630 F. 2d 20 9, 211-12 (3d Cir. 1980) (“ Federa l law gives them

no right of action; th eref ore, they have no right to invok e fe deral juri sd ic ti on . . . . Perc ei vi ng no cas e o r co nt ro ve rs y ari si ng un de r fed eral law, we le av e th e ap pe ll an ts to see k re dr es s i n [s ta te co ur t].”). A cc or din gly , w e re ve rs e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r an d r em an d th e ca se w ith instructio ns that the dis trict court enter summ ary j udgm ent for the Sc hool District
o n O rt e g a ’s I D E A c l a i m b e c au s e s h e p r e s e n t s n o j u s t i c i ab l e c l a i m. REVERSED an d R EMANDED.