## Facts

- M.S., a Fairfax County public school student with multiple disabilities affecting reading and language, received special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
- Fairfax County developed IEPs for M.S. for the 2002–2003, 2003–2004, and 2004–2005 school years.
- Believing those IEPs failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE), M.S.’s parents unilaterally placed him at the Lindamood-Bell Center, a private program providing intensive one-on-one instruction, and sought tuition reimbursement.
- In an IDEA due-process hearing, the hearing officer found a procedural violation (failure to invite a Lindamood representative to an IEP meeting) but otherwise found Fairfax’s IEPs appropriate and Lindamood-Bell an inappropriate placement; reimbursement was denied.
- On judicial review, the district court affirmed the reimbursement denial for 2002–2005, evaluating the private placement as a single multi-year “block,” and also upheld Fairfax’s 2005–2006 IEP as providing FAPE.
- M.S. appealed the reimbursement denial and the ruling that the 2005–2006 IEP was adequate.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by denying reimbursement for the 2002–2005 unilateral private placement without evaluating appropriateness on a school-year-by-school-year basis and without considering partial reimbursement.
2. Whether Fairfax’s 2005–2006 IEP was reasonably calculated to provide M.S. educational benefit and thus provided FAPE under the IDEA.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment upholding Fairfax’s 2005–2006 IEP as providing FAPE.
- The court vacated the denial of tuition reimbursement for the 2002–2005 private placement and remanded.
- The court held the district court must assess reimbursement eligibility on a year-by-year basis and consider whether equitable relief could include partial reimbursement.

## Legal Principles

- A FAPE requires special education and related services reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit, implemented primarily through an IEP.
- In IDEA reimbursement disputes, courts must evaluate both the adequacy of the public IEP and the appropriateness of the unilateral private placement with a school-year-specific focus.
- Tuition reimbursement is an equitable remedy; courts have discretion to award reimbursement in full or in part where the private placement is appropriate only for some years or to some degree.
- Courts generally defer to educational judgments embodied in properly developed IEPs, and procedural defects warrant relief only if they result in a denial of FAPE.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit required a year-by-year analysis (and possible partial reimbursement) for IDEA claims seeking repayment of multi-year unilateral private placements, while affirming that Fairfax’s 2005–2006 IEP met the FAPE standard.


M.S. v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 553 F.3d 315 (4th Cir. 2009)