The case of Irving Independent School District vs Tatro was heard by the Supreme Court on April 16, 1984. Irving ISD, as the petitioner was represented by Mr. James Deatherage. The respondant, the Tatro family, was represented by Mr. James Todd. The judges, Burger, Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens, and O’Connor ruled in a 6-2 favor of the respondents that clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) is a “related service” under the Education of the Handicapped Act. The judges also ruled unanimously that section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is inapplicable when relief is available under the Education of the Handicapped Act to remedy a denial of educational services and therefore not entitled to any relief under
…show more content…
The respondents assert that CIC is not a medical service and is very similar to dispensing of medication by school personnel. Also, that since the school district is not providing the equipment for CIC and is also not obligated to provide the equipment either. The respondents cited examples that physical therapists, occupational therapist, speech pathologist, and audiologist must be certified and the only persons able to provide the services, which may be prescribed by a physician and is required for the school district to provide such professionals to provide any related services. Should an additional person be required to be hired, that person does not have to be a highly specialized person as in the cases of physical therapists, et al. The respondents maintain that CIC should be considered a medical treatment instead of medical services. Since, the state cannot be required to undertake undue burden in order to accommodate someone who’s not an otherwise qualified handicapped individual, they would not have to perform the CIC if such was the case. The CIC is needed based on three reasons, 1) benefit of academic instruction in the classroom 2) being in the room with nonhandicapped children and 3) must not be denied the benefit unless it just can’t be provided, even with the use of supplementary aids and services. The obstacle is posed by the handicap and CIC is a technological advance that brings about a service which can accommodate the needs of the handicapped at no undue burden to the school
The respondents assert that CIC is not a medical service and is very similar to dispensing of medication by school personnel. Also, that since the school district is not providing the equipment for CIC and is also not obligated to provide the equipment either. The respondents cited examples that physical therapists, occupational therapist, speech pathologist, and audiologist must be certified and the only persons able to provide the services, which may be prescribed by a physician and is required for the school district to provide such professionals to provide any related services. Should an additional person be required to be hired, that person does not have to be a highly specialized person as in the cases of physical therapists, et al. The respondents maintain that CIC should be considered a medical treatment instead of medical services. Since, the state cannot be required to undertake undue burden in order to accommodate someone who’s not an otherwise qualified handicapped individual, they would not have to perform the CIC if such was the case. The CIC is needed based on three reasons, 1) benefit of academic instruction in the classroom 2) being in the room with nonhandicapped children and 3) must not be denied the benefit unless it just can’t be provided, even with the use of supplementary aids and services. The obstacle is posed by the handicap and CIC is a technological advance that brings about a service which can accommodate the needs of the handicapped at no undue burden to the school