Opinion ID: 1761139
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The IDEA Claim

Text: ¶ 14. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., requires states, as a prerequisite to obtaining federal funding, to provide all disabled children with a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs. 20 U.S.C. § 1400(c) (1994). Natchez-Adams School District v. Searing, 918 F. Supp. 1028, 1030-31 (S.D.Miss. 1996). See also W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d 484, 499 (3d Cir.1995). To determine whether the IDEA has been violated, the United States Supreme Court set forth a two-part test in Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982): `First, has the State complied with the procedures set forth in the Act? And second, is the individualized educational program developed through the Act's procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits?' Salley v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, 57 F.3d 458, 466 (5th Cir.1995) ( quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07, 102 S.Ct. at 3051). The primary means of assuring that each disabled child is given a meaningful opportunity to benefit educationally under the IDEA is the `individualized education program' or IEP. Searing, 918 F. Supp. at 1031. ¶ 15. The record contains copies of the IEPs developed for Corey while he was a student at Houston Elementary School. They indicate that Brown approved of his placement in the special education program, that she agreed with the program developed for her son, and that the child was meeting the goals set for him. Further, the record indicates that Brown had met with Corey's teachers only three days before he died to discuss his progress. While the IDEA `confers upon disabled students an enforceable substantive right to public education in participating States ...,' there simply are no facts in the record to support an IDEA claim. W.B., 67 F.3d at 499 ( quoting Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 310, 108 S.Ct. 592, 597, 98 L.Ed.2d 686 (1988)). ¶ 16. To overcome the defense of qualified immunity in an IDEA claim, a plaintiff must show more than that he or she was denied a free, appropriate public education in a general sense; rather, a plaintiff must demonstrate `that the particular actions taken by defendants were impermissible under law established at that time.' W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d 484, 499-500 (3d Cir.1995) ( quoting P.C. v. McLaughlin, 913 F.2d 1033, 1040 (2d Cir.1990)). Brown has presented no evidence that her child was denied a free, appropriate public education in any sense.