2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-5-2002

D. v. W Chester Area Sch

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 1-1775

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"D. v. W Chester Area Sch" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 98.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/98
 REPORTED - NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

 THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 ___________ 

 No. 01-1775 

 ___________ 

 NICOLE D., A MINOR BY HER PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS; SHELLY 

 D. F.; JOHN M., NICOLE D., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON HER OWN 

 BEHALF, 

 Appellants 

 

 v. 

 THE WEST CHESTER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 

 ___________ 

 ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 (D.C. Civil No. 00-cv-03480) 

 District Judge: The Honorable Harvey Bartle, III 

 ___________ 

 ARGUED JANUARY 22, 2002 

 BEFORE: NYGAARD and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges, 

 and CAPUTO, District Judge. 

 (Filed: February 4, 2002) 

Dennis C. McAndrews, Esq. (Argued) 

Monahan & McAndrews 

125 Strafford Avenue, Suite 108 

Wayne, PA 19087 

 Counsel for Appellants 

Andrew E. Faust, Esq. (Argued) 

Chester County Intermediate Unit 

Educational Legal Services 

535 James Hance Court 

Exton, PA 19341 

 Counsel for Appellee 

 ___________ 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT 

 ___________ 
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. 

 This appeal is from an order of the District Court which affirmed 

a decision 

by a Pennsylvania Special Education Appeals Panel. Appellants allege as 

error the issues 

listed in paragraph I, taken verbatim from their brief. Because we 

conclude that the 

District Court did not err, we will affirm. 

 I. 

 The allegations of error asserted by appellants are as follows: 

 1. Did the lower court err in finding that Nicole was not 

an eligible student 

 under either the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or 

Section 504 

 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973? 

 2. Did the lower court err in failing to reimburse Nicole's 

parents for tuition 

 paid to a private school and related expenses, after the school 

district failed 

 to provide her with special education and related services? 

 3. Did the lower court abuse its discretion in refusing to 

admit additional 

 evidence in support of Nicole's claims? 

 II. 

 The facts and procedural history of this case are well known to 

the parties 

and the court, and it is not necessary that we restate them here. The 

court has heard oral 

argument on the issues presented to us in this appeal. The reasons why we 

write an 

opinion of the court are threefold: to instruct the District Court, to 

educate and inform the 

attorneys and parties, and to explain our decision. None of these reasons 

are presented 

here. We use a Memorandum Opinion in cases such as this, in which a 

published opinion 

is rendered unnecessary because the opinion has no institutional or 

precedential value. 

See United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Internal 

Operating Procedure 

(I.O.P.) 5.2. Under the usual circumstances when we affirm by Memorandum 

Opinion 

and Judgment, we "briefly set[] forth the reasons supporting the court's 

decision...." 

I.O.P. 5.4. In this case, however, we have concluded that neither a full 

memorandum 

explanation nor a published opinion is indicated because of the very 

extensive and 

thorough opinion filed by Judge Bartle of the District Court. Judge 

Bartle's opinion 
adequately explains and fully supports its order and refutes the 

appellant's allegations of 

error. Hence, we believe it wholly unnecessary to further opine, or offer 

additional 

explanations and reasons to those given by the District Court, why we will 

affirm. It is a 

sufficient explanation to say that, essentially for the reasons given by 

the District Court in 

its opinion dated the 19th day of March, 2001, we will affirm. 

 III. 

 In sum, for this reason, we will affirm the order of the District 

Court dated 

March 19, 2001. 

 

_________________________ 

TO THE CLERK: 

 Please file the foregoing opinion. 

 /s/ Richard L. Nygaard 

 Circuit Judge 
 THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 ___________ 

 No. 01-1775 

 ___________ 

 NICOLE D., A MINOR BY HER PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS; SHELLY 

 D. F.; JOHN M., NICOLE D., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON HER OWN 

 BEHALF, 

 Appellants 

 

 v. 

 THE WEST CHESTER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 

 ___________ 

 ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 (D.C. Civil No. 00-cv-03480) 

 District Judge: The Honorable Harvey Bartle, III 

 ___________ 

 ARGUED JANUARY 22, 2002 

 BEFORE: NYGAARD and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges, 

 and CAPUTO, District Judge. 

 ___________ 

 JUDGMENT 

 ___________ 

 

 This cause came to be heard on the record from the United States 

District 

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was argued by counsel 

on January 22, 

2002. 

 On consideration whereof, it is now here ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by 

this Court that the order of the said District Court entered on March 19, 

2001, be, and the 

same is hereby affirmed. 

 Costs taxed against appellant. 
 All of the above in accordance with the opinion of this Court. 

 ATTEST: 

 _________________________________ 

 Clerk 

Dated: 4 February 2002