De Mora v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (2001)
- reannonrieder
- 1 day ago
- 2 min read
By: Leah O’Donohue
Overview
De Mora v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (2001) was a case decided by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania regarding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). The plaintiff, the mother of a child with a disability, was challenging a hearing officer’s denial of reimbursement for private disability services that were denied inclusion in the child’s Individualized Family Service Plan (“IFSP”). The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (“PDPW”) argued that the IFSP provided was appropriate in meeting the baseline of assistance required by the IDEA[1].
Summary
The primary issues in this case were whether the IFSP provided was “appropriate” and whether the plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement for services obtained outside of the IFSP.
This case specifically examined Part C of the IDEA, which provides states with funding and services for children with disabilities from birth to age 2, requiring that an appropriate IFSP be provided to meet the child's unique needs[2]. In assessing the level of “appropriateness” of the IFSP in this case, the court looked for evidence that “meaningful progress” was made in the child’s learning and development as a result of the implementation of the plan[1].
While the PDPW was able to provide evidence of “meaningful progress” in relation to physical therapy services provided by the IFSP, they failed to prove that the Plan was able to create “meaningful progress” from the speech and occupational therapy provided. The plaintiff, however, was able to provide evidence of “meaningful progress” from the date that they began private services in addition to the IFSP services[1].
After considering all the evidence in this appeal, the court reversed and remanded this case, determining that the hearing officer had made an error in finding the original IFSP appropriate. The court additionally determined that the plaintiff in this case was entitled to reimbursement for the supplemental services.
Impact
De Mora v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (2001) sets the precedent that IFSPs must be judged on whether they meet an individual’s needs in a meaningful way, not merely meeting the bare requirements of the IDEA.
This case also reinforced the section of the IDEA that allows a court to grant appropriate compensation for supplementary services when an IFSP is found to be inadequate.
Court Documents & Citations
De Mora v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, 768 A.2d 904 (pa. Commw. Ct. 2001).
118 Stat. 2647 - Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. (2004). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/STATUTE-118/STATUTE-118-Pg2647
National Center for Learning Disabilities. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act LEARN the LAW. Jan. 2024. https://ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/240502-Learn-the-Law-Individuals-with-Disabilities-Education-Act.pdf
