v.
Garret F., a minor, by his mother and next friend, Charlene
Certiorari to the United States
No. 96-1793
Argued November 4, 1998
Decided March 3, 1999
This case, appealed from the Eighth Circuit to the Supreme Court, revolves around the case of a student named Garret F. who, at the age of four, received devastating injuries—including spinal column damage leading to paralysis from the neck down—in a motorcycle accident. His condition requires that he receive catheterization and breathing (ventilation) assistance. His family used proceeds from a legal settlement and insurance to pay for his medical assistance but, as these funds dwindled, they eventually asked the school system of Cedar Rapids, Iowa to pay for Garret’s medical needs during school hours, basing this request primarily of IDEA’s mandate that schools assure that children with special needs be provided a “free and appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs.”
The case revolved primarily around the language “related services.” Previous court cases had adjudicated that systems must provide social and psychological services, clean catheterization at least twice a day, and services related to specific disabilities such as hearing loss or speech pathology. However, none had addressed such a costly service as certified ventilation care—a service which must be provided by licensed caregiver such as a nurse.
The school system argued that, although they could provide a nurse to serve as Garret’s caregiver throughout the day, this would create an unfair burden on other students as they would not have access to the nurse. They also argued that hiring another nurse and purchasing supplemental equipment needed to keep Garret’s ventilator in proper working order would create an unfair burden on the school system’s finances.
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts ruling and Garret was granted daytime services at the school system’s expense. They based their ruling on IDEA and found that the term “medical services” contained within the law did indeed include ventilation services—especially since Garret could not attend school without these services. They noted that the system may indeed have legitimate financial concerns, but that “their role in this dispute [was] to interpret existing law.”
Thus, the ruling expanded the definition of “related services.”
The dissenting justices (Thomas joined by Scalia) argued that the majority over-relied upon Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984) which codified the concept that schools must provide one on one nursing assistance as needed by students with special needs—an over-reliance which places an onerous financial burden on school systems. They suggested that Tatro need not have been included and that IDEA should have been the primary law for consideration, arguing that IDEA’s language related to medical care for student’s with disabilities has a more limited scope—one which would not include costly ventilation services.
