Cornett v. Banks

Background

Donna Cornett brought the action individually and on behalf of her minor child, J.B., against the New York City Department of Education and David C. Banks in his official capacity as Chancellor of the Department. J.B. is a student with special needs and significant medical and educational impairments. Since 2018, J.B. had attended the private school iBRAIN, which her parents selected.

For the 2022–2023 school year, the Department’s Committee on Special Education recommended an Individualized Education Program (IEP) with a 12:1+(3:1) class placement, related services, and placement at P.S. Q256. J.B.’s parents rejected that placement and unilaterally enrolled J.B. at iBRAIN. Cornett then sought administrative relief, alleging that the IEP was inappropriate, that P.S. Q256 could not implement it, and that the Department should pay iBRAIN’s tuition and related costs.

Impartial Hearing Officer Leah Murphy found that the Department had failed to provide J.B. a free appropriate public education (FAPE) because the Department had not shown that P.S. Q256 could implement the IEP. The hearing officer nevertheless found that Cornett had not shown that iBRAIN was an appropriate unilateral placement or that reimbursement was supported by equitable considerations. State Review Officer Justyn Bates reversed the FAPE finding, concluding that the challenge to P.S. Q256’s ability to implement the IEP was speculative. The State Review Officer also declined to review the IEP’s adequacy because Cornett had not appealed the hearing officer’s finding that the IEP was appropriate.

Issues and legal standards

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) case, summary judgment functions in substance as judicial review of the state administrative decision. The federal court reviews the administrative record, considers any additional evidence allowed by the statute, and generally gives due weight to the state officers’ reasoned decisions, particularly on educational-policy questions.

Parents seeking reimbursement for a unilateral private-school placement generally must establish three things: the public school’s proposed services were inadequate or inappropriate, the private placement was appropriate, and equitable considerations support reimbursement. These requirements are commonly called the Burlington/Carter test. Because the court concluded that the Department provided a FAPE, it did not need to decide the second and third requirements to resolve the case.

Court’s analysis

The court first held that Cornett had waived her substantive and procedural challenges to the IEP by failing to appeal the hearing officer’s finding that the IEP was adequate. The court found no legal basis to overturn the State Review Officer’s waiver determination.

The court then considered Cornett’s challenges independently. It rejected the claim that the Department’s evaluation was procedurally inadequate, noting that the Committee on Special Education had reviewed medical and educational records, observations, reports, and other information about J.B. The court also rejected the challenge concerning a school tour. It stated that the IDEA did not require the Department to allow a parent to visit a proposed school before finalizing the recommendation and found that J.B.’s parents had participated in a virtual tour and received information about P.S. Q256.

The court also rejected Cornett’s substantive challenge to the IEP’s 12:1+(3:1) class recommendation. It held that the challenge was waived, and that, even if it were not waived, Cornett had provided no objective evidence showing that the recommended class size would prevent J.B. from making educational progress. The court further noted that the Second Circuit had described that class size as the most supportive classroom environment contemplated by the relevant New York regulations.

Finally, the court upheld the State Review Officer’s conclusion that Cornett had not shown that P.S. Q256 was factually incapable of implementing the IEP. The court found that Cornett’s claims about related services and a one-to-one paraprofessional were speculative and that the administrative record contained evidence that the school had the capacity to implement the IEP.

Unreached reimbursement issues

Although it did not need to decide the private-placement and equitable-reimbursement requirements, the court reviewed the hearing officer’s findings on those issues. The hearing officer had found that Cornett did not establish that J.B. regularly attended iBRAIN or that iBRAIN provided the one-to-one nursing care required by the IEP. The hearing officer also found that the equities did not favor reimbursement because the record lacked evidence that J.B. regularly attended iBRAIN. The court found those determinations reasonable and stated that both remaining Burlington/Carter factors would favor the Defendants if considered.

Disposition

The court held that the State Review Officer’s determination that the Department provided J.B. a FAPE for the 2022–2023 school year was correct and entitled to deference. Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the Defendants, terminate all pending motions, and close the case.