Mason v. Melissa Aviles-Ramos and the New York City Department of Education

Background

Carolyn Mason sued individually and on behalf of A.D., a child with a traumatic brain injury, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The case challenged a state administrative decision concerning whether the New York City Department of Education (DOE) offered A.D. a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2021–2022 school year.

The DOE’s March 2021 individualized education program (IEP) proposed placing A.D. in a special-education class and included a full-time nurse, a full-time individual health paraprofessional, related services, and staff training. But the IEP did not state that A.D. had allergies, identify his specific allergens, describe that some allergies were airborne and potentially fatal, or provide measures for preventing or managing exposure. The IEP referred only to annual allergy-safety training. The DOE had access to information about A.D.’s allergies, including an earlier IEP from the International Institute for the Brain (iBRAIN), and acknowledged that it knew about the allergies.

Mason rejected the proposed public-school program and enrolled A.D. at iBRAIN. An impartial hearing officer found that the DOE had offered a FAPE but also found that iBRAIN was appropriate and that equitable considerations favored reimbursement. A state review officer upheld the FAPE finding and did not decide whether iBRAIN was appropriate or whether the equities supported reimbursement. Both sides then moved for summary judgment in federal court.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the three-part Burlington/Carter test for reimbursement of a unilateral private-school placement. The first question was whether the DOE’s proposed program violated the IDEA. The second was whether iBRAIN was appropriate for A.D. The third was whether the balance of fairness considerations favored reimbursement.

On the first question, the court independently reviewed the administrative record and concluded that the DOE IEP substantively denied A.D. a FAPE. The court explained that A.D. could not safely attend school without accommodations for his life-threatening airborne allergies. Because the DOE knew about the allergies but failed to identify them or describe measures to prevent exposure, the IEP was not reasonably calculated to provide meaningful educational benefit.

The court rejected the state review officer’s conclusion that the full-time nurse and a separate nursing referral form adequately addressed the allergies. The referral form did not identify the specific allergens or explain how to prevent airborne exposure, and the IEP did not reference the form. The court also rejected reliance on testimony that the proposed school could have accommodated the allergies, reasoning that such later testimony could not supply accommodations missing from the written IEP.

On the second question, the court upheld the hearing officer’s finding that iBRAIN was an appropriate placement. The record showed that iBRAIN provided a specialized program, used procedures to limit exposure to potential allergens, and maintained an IEP that identified A.D.’s allergies and described steps for managing the risks. On the third question, the court upheld the finding that the equities favored Mason, including the finding that the family cooperated with the DOE and acted in good faith.

Ruling and disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain concluded that all three Burlington/Carter factors favored reimbursement. She reversed the state review officer’s decision, granted Mason’s motion for summary judgment, and denied the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court ordered the DOE to fully reimburse Mason for iBRAIN tuition, related services, and special transportation for the 2021–2022 school year. The court also directed that any motion for attorneys’ fees be filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) within 45 days of the order, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Mason, and ordered the case closed.