EducationalMalpractice

Nicola Moxey

MED 6490

March 2, 2010

Three Categories Identified As Nonactionable

1.) Poor academic instruction or misrepresentation of the level of academic performance

2.) Failure to place a student in appropriate educational setting

3.) Failure to properly supervise students

Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified School District

131 Cal. Rptr. 854 (Cal.Ct.App.1976)

• Plaintiff’s position was not upheld

• The California court contended that failure of educational achievements is not an injury within the meaning of tort law

Donohue v. Copiague Union Free School District

• Plaintiff alleged that, notwithstanding his receipt of a certificate of graduation, he lacked “the rudimentary ability to comprehend written English on a level sufficient to enable to complete applications for employment

• New York’s Court of Appeals disallowed a cause of action against a school district that sought monetary damages for educational malpractice

Poe v. Hamilton

• High school student sued her teacher after failing his course, which prevented student from graduating

• Ohio court ruled that student had failed to show that the teacher acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in wanton or reckless manner by failing to follow curricular guidelines and school district requirements

Hunter v. BOE of Montgomery County

• Parents of first-grade student sued stating school district had negligently evaluated their child, which caused him to be taught first-grade materials for a second year while he was physically in second grade. Charges of false information and altered school records too!

• Maryland court found that parents were not entitled to monetary damages but that they could take action at a later date against educators who had demonstrated alleged outrageous conduct

Brosnan v. Livonia Public Schools

• Michigan appellate court considered monetary claims for a misdiagnosis of a language impairment. Child had been treated for some time with regard to the diagnosis…court found speech therapist and school district immune form liability

• Court stated that the evaluation and treatment of speech problems are a part of the regular functions of a school system and school personnel should not be held liable in tort for HONEST MISTAKES

B.M. v. Montana

• Montana decision supported monetary claims of foster parents of a child who had been improperly placed in a program for the educable mentally retarded. This situation involved misplacement despite accurate knowledge of ability scores, not misdiagnosis of a disability

Sain v. Cedar Rapids Community School District

• School guidance counselor provided inaccurate info. to a student concerning the course requirements for him to compete in intercollegiate sports at a NCAA Division I university as a freshman. The student got a full scholarship at a Division I college but was stripped of it when the NCAA discovered he was shy the proper English requirements

• Iowa Supreme Court held that the school counselor was liable for not providing the student with accurate info.

Moore v. Vanderloo

• Iowa Supreme Court refused to recognize the tort of educational malpractice

• It had stated that the reasonableness of a school’s conduct as it provided the functions of teaching, supervising, placing, and testing was nonactionable

• Counselors have a duty of care and are in the profession of supplying nongratuitous and nonincidental info. to students, on which students rely.