In Moonsammy v. Banks, No. 23 Civ. 10491 (PAE), 2024 WL 4277521, 124 LRP 35077 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2024), the district court reviewed an administrative decision that found a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) but ordered reimbursement rather than direct payment of tuition for a unilateral private placement. The court also addressed disputes concerning transportation, nursing services, and an independent educational evaluation (IEE).
The case involved a six-year-old child with cerebral palsy, severe visual impairment, and epilepsy. The parents rejected the public school district’s proposed individualized education program (IEP) and placed the student at iBrain, a private school. They arranged transportation through Sisters Travel and Transportation and pursued due process. While the administrative and judicial proceedings were pending, the private providers agreed to suspend the parents’ payment obligations.
An impartial hearing officer (IHO) found that the district denied FAPE. On administrative appeal, the state review officer (SRO) reversed in part but agreed that FAPE had been denied. The district did not challenge that determination. The parents sought judicial review, arguing that the SRO erred by ordering reimbursement rather than direct payment to the private school and transportation provider, by failing to order funding for nursing services at iBrain, and by denying their request for an IEE at public expense.
Addressing the remedy issue, the court reviewed case law concerning whether courts may order direct payment to service providers rather than reimbursement to parents. The court explained that although the IDEA expressly references reimbursement, courts in the district have recognized authority under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii) to order direct payment where appropriate. At the same time, the court noted a lack of consensus regarding the limits of that discretion, including whether parents must demonstrate financial hardship or a binding obligation to pay before direct payment may be ordered. The court further observed that there is no identified statutory basis for an IHO or SRO to order direct payment.
The court concluded that the administrative record did not contain sufficient factual findings to permit a reasoned determination as to whether reimbursement or direct payment was the appropriate remedy. It explained that reimbursement may serve interests such as discouraging excessive tuition charges, while also recognizing that reimbursement may impose hardship on parents. Because the SRO had not developed the record or explained its choice of remedy, the court remanded the issue for further administrative proceedings.
The court likewise remanded the issue of nursing services. It found that the parents’ due process complaint placed the issue before the administrative tribunal and that the record reflected that the lack of nursing services contributed to the finding of a denial of FAPE. The court characterized the omission of nursing services funding from the SRO’s order as likely an oversight warranting remand.
On the IEE issue, the court ruled in favor of the parents. It rejected the SRO’s conclusion that the parents acted improperly by first expressing disagreement with the district’s evaluation in their due process complaint. Citing Second Circuit precedent and federal regulations, the court explained that parents may express disagreement with an evaluation in both formal and informal ways, including through a due process complaint. The court further noted that the district did not initiate due process to defend its evaluation, as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b), and that the parents were therefore entitled to an IEE at public expense.
The decision reflects that remedy determinations following a denial of FAPE require a sufficiently developed administrative record, that related services issues raised and litigated at the administrative level must be fully addressed in the remedy ordered, and that parents may properly raise disagreement with evaluations through due process and obtain an IEE where the district does not timely defend its own assessment.