Opinion ID: 657191
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Reimbursement Of Tuition

Text: 38 Finally, we turn to whether appellant's parents are entitled to reimbursement for the cost of tuition for the Brehm School. With regard to reimbursement for private school tuition, the Supreme Court held: If the court[ ] ultimately determine[s] that the IEP proposed by the school officials was appropriate, the parents would be barred from obtaining reimbursement.... Burlington Sch. Comm. v. Massachusetts Dept. of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 374, 105 S.Ct. 1996, 2004, 85 L.Ed.2d 385 (1985). This Court stated in Doe v. Defendant I, 898 F.2d at 1192: 39 Because we have determined that appellant's IEP was appropriate, he is not entitled to reimbursement for the cost of private schooling. Appellant's parents removed him from the free public school and placed him in a private school at their own peril. They are responsible for the cost of doing so. 40 Appellant's parents assumed the risk of the responsibility for the cost of appellant's private education by removing appellant from the Tullahoma schools without ever giving the proposed IEP a chance. We find the IEP was adequate and the Tullahoma public schools are an appropriate placement. As a result, appellant's parents are not entitled to reimbursement for the tuition expenses of the Brehm School.