Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
Headline: Ruling requires public schools to provide clean intermittent catheterization during school hours as an educational 'related service', but rejects a separate Rehabilitation Act basis and blocks fee recovery under that Act.
Holding: The Court holds that schools must provide clean intermittent catheterization as a "related service" under the Education of the Handicapped Act, but the Rehabilitation Act (§504) claim and related fee award are not available.
- Requires public schools to provide CIC when necessary for a child's education.
- Limits Rehabilitation Act fee recovery when Education of the Handicapped Act applies.
- Allows trained nurses or laypersons to perform CIC at school.
Summary
Background
Amber Tatro is a young girl born with spina bifida who needs clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) every three to four hours to avoid kidney injury. Her local school district had created an individualized education program for her but would not have school personnel perform CIC. Amber’s parents pursued administrative remedies and then sued the school district, arguing that the Education of the Handicapped Act required the school to provide CIC and that §504 of the Rehabilitation Act also barred excluding her from federally funded education programs.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether CIC is a "related service" that a school must provide and whether §504 creates an independent obligation. The Court held CIC qualifies as a supportive "related service" because without it Amber could not attend and benefit from special education. It rejected the idea that CIC is a barred "medical service," crediting Department of Education regulations that limit the exclusion to physician services and treating school health nursing or trained layperson care as allowable. The Court also emphasized limits: services are required only for children who need special education and only when necessary to let the child benefit from that education.
Real world impact
The decision means schools must provide CIC services when necessary to keep a child in school under the Education of the Handicapped Act, and such services can be provided by nurses or trained laypersons. But the Court held the family could not seek additional relief or attorney’s fees under §504 of the Rehabilitation Act when the Education Act already remedies the denial.
Dissents or concurrances
Justices Brennan and Marshall partly disagreed with the Court’s ruling denying attorney’s fees, and Justice Stevens did not join the part rejecting the Rehabilitation Act claim.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?