34 C.F.R. § 300.113

Routine checking of hearing aids and external components of surgically implanted medical devices

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Hearing aids. Each public agency must ensure that hearing aids worn in school by children with hearing impairments, including deafness, are functioning properly.

(b) External components of surgically implanted medical devices. (1) Subject to paragraph (b)(2) of this section, each public agency must ensure that the external components of surgically implanted medical devices are functioning properly.

(2) For a child with a surgically implanted medical device who is receiving special education and related services under this part, a public agency is not responsible for the post-surgical maintenance, programming, or replacement of the medical device that has been surgically implanted (or of an external component of the surgically implanted medical device).

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0030) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(1), 1401(26)(B))
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2009–2024 · leading case: Petit v. United States Dep't of Educ., 675 F.3d 769 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
Petit v. United States Dep't of Educ., 675 F.3d 769 (D.C. Cir. 2012). · cites it 16× “at 46,764 (codified at 34 C.F.R. § 300.113 (2011)). Section 300.”
J.W. ex rel. J.E.W. v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 431 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “34 C.F.R. § 300.113 . However, a public agency is not responsible for post-surgical maintenance, programming, or replacement of a medical device that has been surgically implanted (or of an external component of a surgically implanted medical device).”
J.W. Ex Rel. J.E.W. v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist., 611 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (E.D. Cal. 2009). · cites it 2× “34 C.F.R. § 300.113 . However, a public agency is not responsible for post-surgical maintenance, programming, or replacement of a medical device that has been surgically implanted (or of an external component of a surgically implanted medical device).”
Dist. of Columbia Int'l Pub. Charter Sch. v. Lemus (D.D.C. 2023). “The regulatory provision that DCI cites for this proposition, 34 C.F.R. § 300.113 , is inapplicable here because that provision requires that schools routinely check children's hearing aids, and Orlin does not possess a hearing impairment.”
LE v. Methacton Sch. Dist. (E.D. Pa. 2024). “34 C.F.R. § 300.113 (“Each public agency must ensure that hearing aids worn in school by children with hearing impairments, including deafness, are functioning properly.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.