Grymes v. Madden, 672 F.2d 321 (3rd Cir. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Grymes v. Madden, 672 F.2d 321 (3rd Cir. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
31 citation events across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bernardsville Board of Education v. J.H., Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Son, J.H. E.H., Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Son, J.H. J.H., Individually (ca3, 1994-12-20) · Strongest negative: Alexander Kerkam v. Floretta McKenzie Superintendent, D.C. Public Schools (cadc, 1989-01-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Alexander Kerkam v. Floretta McKenzie Superintendent, D.C. Public Schools
D.C. Cir. · 1989 · signal: but see · confidence high
See Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, 736 F.2d 773, 794 (1st Cir.), aff'd on other grounds, 471 U.S. 359 , 105 S.Ct. 1996 , 85 L.Ed.2d 385 (1984); but see Grymes v. Madden, 672 F.2d 321, 322 (3rd Cir.1982) (passing allusion to school district’s burden of proof). 3 In Town of Burlington the First Circuit remarked that after the district court has “endeavor[ed] to respond to the hearing *888 officer’s resolution of each material issue,” it is “free to accept or reject the [administrative] findings in part or in whole.” 736 F.2d at 792 .
cited Cited "but see" Town of Burlington v. Department of Education for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Town of Burlington v. Department of Education for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, John Doe, Etc., Town of Burlington v. Department of Education for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
1st Cir. · 1984 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Grymes v. Madden, 672 F.2d 321, 322 (3d Cir.1982) (EAHCA appeal).
cited Cited "but see" Town of Burlington v. Department of Education
1st Cir. · 1984 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Grymes v. Madden, 672 F.2d 321, 322 (3d Cir.1982) (EAHCA appeal).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bernardsville Board of Education v. J.H., Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Son, J.H. E.H., Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Son, J.H. J.H., Individually
3rd Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
See McKenzie v. Smith, 771 F.2d 1527, 1531 (D.C.Cir.1985) (where district sought to change child's IEP, it had the burden of proving that the proposed placement complied with the requirements of the Act); Grymes v. Madden, 672 F.2d 321, 322 (3d Cir.1982) (affirming district court's decision that the district had "failed to sustain its burden of proof that an appropriate public program existed"); Cf. S-1 v. Turlington, 635 F.2d 342, 348-49 (5th Cir.) (burden on district to question whether student's misconduct is due to handicap because parents lack expertise to develop an appropriate IEP for t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bernardsville Board of Education v. J.H. (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
See McKenzie v. Smith, 771 F.2d 1527, 1531 (D.C.Cir.1985) (where district sought to change child’s IEP, it had the burden of proving that the proposed placement complied with the requirements of the Act); Grymes v. Madden, 672 F.2d 321, 322 (3d Cir.1982) (affirming district court’s decision that the district had “failed to sustain its burden of proof that an appropriate public program existed”); Cf. S-1 v. Turlington, 635 F.2d 342, 348-49 (5th Cir.) (burden on district to question whether student’s misconduct is due to handicap because parents lack expertise to develop an appropriate…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Christopher M., by Next Friend Laveta McA v. Corpus Christi Independent School District and Mary Grett Memorial School
5th Cir. · 1991 · signal: contra · confidence medium
Eg. McKenzie v. Smith, 771 F.2d 1527, 1533 (D.C.Cir.1985); Doe v. Brookline School Comm., 722 F.2d 910, 919 (1st Cir.1983); see Comment, A School Board Bears the Burden of Proving that the Education of a Handicapped Child is "Appropriate” under the Education for All *1291 Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 22 Rutgers L.J. 273 , 279-80 (1990); contra Grymes v. Madden, 672 F.2d 321, 322 (3rd Cir. 1982). 30 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hiller v. Bd. of Educ. of Brunswick Cent. Sch. D.
N.D.N.Y. · 1990 · confidence medium
Grymes, 672 F.2d at 322.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lascari v. Board of Education of the Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School District
N.J. · 1989 · confidence medium
See McKenzie v. Smith, 771 F.2d 1527, 1531 (D.C.Cir.1985) (where district sought to change child’s IEP, it bore burden of demonstrating that the proposed placement was reasonably calculated to enable child to receive educational benefits); Grymes v. Madden, 672 F.2d 321, 322 (3rd Cir.1982) (accepting district court’s decision that the district had “failed to sustain its burden of proof that an appropriate public program existed”); Bales v. Clarke, 523 F.Supp. 1366, 1370 (E.D. *44 Va.1981) (burden on parents to show that placement is inappropriate).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Louis M. Ex Rel. Velma M. v. Ambach
N.D.N.Y. · 1989 · confidence medium
Grymes v. Madden, 672 F.2d 321, 323 (3d Cir.1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Muth v. Central Bucks School District
3rd Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
Given this fact, the ultimate objectives of the process, the similarity of the responsibilities of due process hearing officers and impartial reviewing officers, and the above-quoted legislative history, we and most other courts addressing the issue have concluded that employees of a state educational agency may not be appointed to conduct an impartial review. 57 In Grymes v. Madden, 672 F.2d 321, 323 (3d Cir.1982), this court held that service as state-level review officers by employees of the Delaware State Department of Public Instruction constituted a denial of impartial review.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Muth v. Central Bucks School District
3rd Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
In Grymes v. Madden, 672 F.2d 321, 323 (3d Cir.1982), this court held that service as state-level review officers by employees of the Delaware State Department of Public Instruction constituted a denial of impartial review.
cited Cited as authority (rule) John Doe v. Brookline School Committee
1st Cir. · 1983 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Grymes v.' Madden, 672 F.2d 321, 322-23 (3d Cir.1982) (school district’s unilateral termination of interim placement funding violated! § 1415(e)(3)). rv.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Max M. v. Thompson
N.D. Ill. · 1983 · confidence medium
Although there may be some merit to plaintiffs' claim, see, Grymes v. Madden, 672 F.2d 321, 323 (3rd Cir.1982), it nevertheless must be dismissed because of the lack of any available remedy.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rondal D. Cain, Darla A. Cain, and Mark Cain v. Yukon Public Schools, District I-27
10th Cir. · 1985 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare Grymes v. Madden, 672 F.2d 321, 323 (3d Cir.1982) (per curiam), and Helms v. McDaniel, 657 F.2d 800 , 806 n. 9 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 946 , 102 S.Ct. 1443 , 71 L.Ed.2d 658 (1982), with Victoria L. v. District School Board of Lee County, 741 F.2d 369, 374 (11th Cir.1984).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Colin and Alan K., Minors by John K., Their Next Friend and Father v. Thomas C. Schmidt, Middletown School Committee, Colin K. v. Thomas C. Schmidt
1st Cir. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Grymes v. Madden, 672 F.2d 321, 323 (3d Cir.1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John M. Grymes and Joyce M. Grymes on Their Own Behalf and as Parents and Next Friends of James Grymes, a Minor
v.
Kenneth C. Madden, Individually and as Superintendent of Public Instruction and Secretary of the State Board of Education, the State Board of Education, Albert H. Jones, President Richard M. Farmer, Vice-President Robert W. Allen, Harry Camper, Elise Grossman, Kenneth Hilton, and Raymond Tomasetti, Members of the State Board of Education, Individually and in Their Official Capacities, Dr. Carroll W. Biggs, Individually and as Superintendent of the New Castle County School District, Gilbert S. Scarborough, Jr., President William H. Clark, Vice-President Mary Divirgilio, Earl J. Reed, Jr. And James H. Sills, Jr., Members of the New Castle County School Board, Individually and in Their Official Capacities, the New Castle County School Board, and the New Castle County School District, State Board of Education
81-1809.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Feb 8, 1982.
672 F.2d 321
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

672 F.2d 321

3 Ed. Law Rep. 238

John M. GRYMES and Joyce M. Grymes on their own behalf and
as parents and next friends of James Grymes, a
minor, Appellees,
v.
Kenneth C. MADDEN, individually and as Superintendent of
Public Instruction and Secretary of the State Board of
Education, the State Board of Education, Albert H. Jones,
President; Richard M. Farmer, Vice-President; Robert W.
Allen, Harry Camper, Elise Grossman, Kenneth Hilton, and
Raymond Tomasetti, members of the State Board of Education,
individually and in their official capacities, Dr. Carroll
W. Biggs, individually and as Superintendent of the New
Castle County School District, Gilbert S. Scarborough, Jr.,
President; William H. Clark, Vice-President; Mary
Divirgilio, Earl J. Reed, Jr. and James H. Sills, Jr.,
members of the New Castle County School Board, individually
and in their official capacities, the New Castle County
School Board, and the New Castle County School District,
State Board of Education, Appellants.

No. 81-1809.

United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.

Argued Dec. 15, 1981.
Decided Feb. 8, 1982.

Brian J. Hartman (argued), Community Legal Aid Society, Inc., Wilmington, Del., for appellees.

Roger A. Akin (argued), Deputy Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Wilmington, Del., for appellants.

Before ADAMS, GIBBONS, and GARTH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

[*~321]1

On this appeal, the Delaware State Board of Education maintains that the district court erred in awarding John and Joyce Grymes full tuition reimbursement for the education of their son, James, in a private school for learning-disabled students during the pendency of their claim under The Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. The State Board also challenges the district court's conclusion that service by an employee of the State Department of Public Instruction as a State Level Review Officer under the Act is per se a denial of the impartial review guaranteed by 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c). We reject both contentions and affirm the judgment of the district court.

2

During the 1977-78 school year the local school district and the State Board, after local and state level hearings, declared James Grymes ineligible for financial assistance to attend the Beechwood School, a private educational institution. In February 1978, Mr. and Mrs. Grymes received an award of partial tuition for the cost of the public education James could have received, but pursued their administrative and judicial remedies for an award of full tuition. In a suit brought before the district court, Grymes v. Madden, --- F.Supp. ----, 3 EHLR 552:183 (D.Del.1979) (Grymes I), the trial judge awarded the Grymeses an amount equal to full tuition because the local school district had failed to sustain its burden of proof that an appropriate public program existed.

3

During the pendency of Grymes I and prior to the beginning of the 1978-79 school year, the local school district proposed to change James's placement to a public school in the district. The Grymeses rejected the proposal and again sought administrative relief. In the course of the administrative proceedings the local school district and the State Board withdrew all public funding for James's private school education. During 1978-79, Mr. and Mrs. Grymes paid the private school tuition for their son in order to ensure that he would continue to be enrolled. After completing the state level administrative hearings as well as appeals, the Grymeses took an appeal to the district court pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2) and (4) challenging the State Board's refusal to fund James's private placement on a full tuition basis. The district court ordered the State Board to reimburse the Grymeses for the 1978-79 school year tuition. Because James entered a public educational program in 1979, the district court concluded that no further relief was necessary.

4

Federal agency interpretations and existing case law provide ample support for the district court's determination that the withdrawal of funding for James's tuition violated 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(3), which requires the "maintenance of a current educational placement" during the pendency of any proceedings pursuant to the Section. See Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, Policy Letter of March 14, 1979, 2 EHLR 95-6. See also Monahan v. State of Nebraska, 491 F.Supp. 1074 (D.Neb.1980) aff'd. 645 F.2d 592 (8th Cir. 1981); Gargani v. The School Committee of the City of Cranston, No. 77-0612, slip op. at 7 (D.R.I.1978) aff'd without opinion 601 F.2d 571 (1st Cir. 1979). Guided by these decisions, the Bureau's interpretation of the Act, and the reasoning of the district court, --- F.Supp. ----, we agree that continued funding is required until due process proceedings and appeals have been completed.

5

The district court also construed the statutory term "impartial review" to preclude the use of State Board employees as review officers in proceedings such as those involved here. The district court's holding is supported by the legislative history of the Act. Impartial review, as the drafters of the Act in their conference committee report expressly stated, cannot be "conducted by an employee of the state or local educational agency involved in the education or care of the child ..." Senate Conference Report, U.S. Code of Congressional and Administrative News, 94th Congress, First Session, 1975, pp. 1425, 1502.

[*~322]6

The district court's judgment will be affirmed.