34 C.F.R. § 300.5
Assistive technology device
Assistive technology device means any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability. The term does not include a medical device that is surgically implanted, or the replacement of such device.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case: Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988).
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988). “§ 1401 (1); 34 CFR § 300.5 (b)(8) (1987). As noted above, the record is replete with evidence that Smith is unable to govern his aggressive, impulsive behavior indeed, his notice of suspension acknowledged that "Jack's actions seem beyond his control.”
Timothy W., Etc. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, Sch. Dist., 875 F.2d 954 (1st Cir. 1989). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.5 . See also 20 U.S.C. § 1401 (1).”
Irving Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984). “§ 1401 (1); 34 CFR § 300.5 (1983). In the absence of a handicap that requires special education, the need for what otherwise might qualify as a related service does not create an obligation under the Act.”
Georgia State Conf. of Branches of Naacp, Mary Alice Covin, Mary Laurant, Sylvia Dennis, & Naomi Tucker v. State of Georgia, 775 F.2d 1403 (11th Cir. 1985). “Interpretation of State Regulations Federal regulations require that “significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning” and “deficits in adaptive behavior,” 34 C.F.R. § 300.5 (b)(4), be identified in a child before placing the student in an EMR program.”
Floretta McKenzie Superintendent, D.C. Pub. Schs. v. Christopher Smith, by His Parents, 771 F.2d 1527 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.5 (b)(8), (9). 6 . "Any party aggrieved by the findings and decision .”
A.E. ex rel. Evans v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 25, 936 F.2d 472 (10th Cir. 1991). “was not seriously emotionally disturbed. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma affirmed.”
Lyons Ex Rel. Alexander v. Smith, 829 F. Supp. 414 (D.D.C. 1993). “§ 1401 (a)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.5 (b)(7). The hearing officer found that Michael was not “other health impaired” because his alertness was not affected by his ADHD.”
Straube v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F. Supp. 1164 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). “A; 34 C.F.R. § 300.5 (9). There is no requirement under the IDEA that every variation of disability be addressed separately by state policy so long as an appropriate education can be provided to each handicapped child, no matter what disability makes him or her eligible for…”
Jason Babb, a Minor, Through His Parents & Next Friends, Joe & Sharon Babb v. Knox Cnty. Sch. Sys., 965 F.2d 104 (6th Cir. 1992). “5 (b)(8): (i) The term means a condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree, which adversely affects educational performance: (A) An inability to learn which cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or…”
Dist. 27 Cmty. Sch. Bd. v. Bd. of Educ., 130 Misc. 2d 398 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1986). “” (34 CFR 300.5 [b] [7] [ii].) Education Law §4401 (1) defines a " 'child with a handicapping condition’ ” as one "who, because of mental, physical or emotional reasons can receive appropriate educational opportunities from special services and programs”.”
Doe v. Bd. of Educ. of State of Conn., 753 F. Supp. 65 (D. Conn. 1990). “34 C.F.R. § 300.5 (b)(8). Connecticut law on the subject is very similar to federal law; a “socially and emotionally maladjusted child” is defined as “one who is incapable of fully profiting from the general educational programs of the public schools because of some serious…”
In re the Adoption of Amendments To N.J.A.C. 6:28-2.10, 702 A.2d 838 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997). “] Additionally, the United States Department of Education amended the federal regulations implementing IDEA by adding the Technology Act’s definitions of “assistive technology device” *398 and “assistive technology sendee” at 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.5 and 300.6 respectively.”
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.