Opinion ID: 4535004
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Recoupment versus reimbursement

Text: One can imagine circumstances in which a school district pays on a pendency basis for the educational services of a private school selected unilaterally by the parents, after which a court decides in the school district’s favor, by holding that the parents’ unilateral transfer modified the child’s pendency placement, or that the school district’s proposed IEP would have afforded the child a FAPE.66 In these circumstances, the school district would have no recourse under the 66 Cf. S.S., 2010 WL 983719, at  (rejecting claim by the City that it is entitled to be reimbursed for the payments made “to advance the child[’s] . . . private school tuition during hearing and appeal process” pursuant to the stay-put provision in light of the state review officer’s final decision that the IEP “proposed for the child would have afforded him a” FAPE for the relevant school year). 33 IDEA to recoup the sums it expended on the child. 67 By contrast, if the school district were found to have unilaterally modified the child’s placement, the parent could seek injunctive relief against the school district for violating the IDEA. 68