Related Services: Medical Services

Under the IDEA "medical services" that are eligible "related services" are those specific "services provided by a licensed physician to determine a child's medically related disability that results in the child's needs for special education and other related services." 34 CFR 300.34(c)(5). Therefore, if the medical services is necessary for diagnostic purposes it is required under the IDEA.



The Supreme Court has adopted a bright line rule on this issue as well, finding that medical services that can only be delivered by a physician are not related services and that health care support services, which can be administered by a person other than a physician are related services under the IDEA and therefore the responsibility of the school district. See Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 555 IDELR 511 (1984), affirmed in Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. by Charlene F., 29 IDELR 966 (1999).



The Department of Education clarified in the 2006 IDEA Part B regulations that school districts are responsible for "providing services necessary to maintain the health and safety of a child while the child is in school, with breathing, nutrition, and other bodily functions (e.g., nursing services, suctioning a tracheotomy, urinary catheterization) if these services can be provided by someone who has been trained to provide the service and are not the type of services that can only be provided by a licensed physician." See Analysis of Comments and Changes to 2006 IDEA Part B Regulations, 71 Fed. Reg. 46571 (August 14, 2006). Thereofre, a medically fragile student, for example, would be eligible for health care related services that are supportive services the child needs to receive during the day in order to be able to attend school and thereby benefit from his or her education and should be noted in the child's IEP.



The Department of Education also clarified what type of medical services would not be related services. Specifically the DOE clarified that the optimization of a surgically implanted device's functioning, maintenance of the device or replacement of the device that requires the expertise of a licensed physician or an individual with specialized technical expertise beyond that typically available from school personnel (e.g., mapping of a cochlear implant) was not a related service. See id.; see also 34 CFR 300.34(b)(1). This does not limit, however, the right of the student with a surgically implanted device to receive other related services that are necessary for the child to receive a FAPE. It also does not limit the responsibility of the district to monitor and maintain devices that are need to maintain the health and safety of the child while he or she is being transported to and from school or is at school. Nor does it prevent the routine checking of a external component of a surgically implanted device to make sure it is functioning properly. See 34 CFR 300.113(b).



One related health service that a school district would likely responsible for would be vision therapy, if it was necessary to assist the child's educational needs and did not require administration by a physician. The decision about whether a student requires a related service such as vision therapy is, of course, a case-by-case determination for what is required for a FAPE.



For example, in Dekalb County Sch. Dist., the 11th Circuit ruled that a district's IEP for a student with a visual condition, which had not manifested itself in poor educational performance, prevented him from receiving FAPE. The court upheld an order to the district to pay for the student'svision therapy services. The evidence showed the student's significant visual problems would become much worse and interfere significantly with his ability to benefit from special education without the therapy. Therefore, the district was required to provide vision therapy in order to offer the student FAPE. See Dekalb County Sch. Dist. v. M.T.V. by C.E.V. and C.T.V., 45 IDELR 30(11th Cir. 2006). In Eugene Sch. Dist., however, it was determined that a student eligible for special education with Emotional Disturbance did not require vision therapy to benefit from his education as his above-average performance in reading comprehension undermined the parent's position that he required vision therapy to make academic progress. See Eugene Sch. Dist. 4J, 35 IDELR 52 (SEA OR 2001).