Special education case headed to U.S. Supreme Court

Poughkeepsie - A legal battle over special education services between a Dutchess County family and a school district heads to the U.S. Supreme Court this month. The case involves an appeal of a lower court’s award of $8,650 to an expert used by Pearl and Theodore Murphy of LaGrangeville in their effort to force the Arlington school district to pay for their son’s special education at a private school. At issue is whether the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act authorizes payment of expert fees to parents who win their cases in court. The high court, which agreed to review the case in January, will hear arguments April 19. During the 1997-98 school year, the Murphys sought to have their son Joseph, now 22, placed in a private school after a speech/language specialist diagnosed he was “severely functionally language disordered.” That started the nine-year legal battle that will be decided by the Supreme Court. Though the case is narrowly focused on expert fees, it has wide implications for school districts and parents. School districts face the prospect of paying more money if fees for experts are found to be reimbursable. The debate focuses on a passage of the federal act that says, “the court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of the costs to the parents of a child with a disability who is the prevailing party.” Attorneys for the school district argue the meaning in the phrase is plain and there is no mention of expert fees. To suggest the phrase “as part of the costs” implies there are other costs, and that those costs include expert fees, is “a magic trick,” according to Raymond Kuntz, the Westchester County lawyer who will argue Arlington’s position. Lawyers for the Murphys say their opponents are ignoring other parts of the law that expressly call for experts’ fees to be included as part of the costs. “If you only read half the statute, you can come to that conclusion (that expert fees are not allowed),” said David Vladeck of the Georgetown University Law Center. “We think their reading overlooks half the statute.”