Courts Makes Exception in Parent's Educational Malpractice Claim

If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .

In the case of Jacobs v. Ethel Walker School, a school and its dean sought summary judgment, a preemptive court decision favoring one party over another, in an action brought by the parents of a student. The parents alleged breach of contract and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The parents raise these claims based on education malpractice. Claims of educational malpractice raise unique problems in terms of judicial review. A claim such as educational malpractice raises questions concerning the reasonableness of conduct by educational institutions in providing particular educational services to students--questions that must be answered by reference to principles of duty, standards of care, and reasonable conduct associated with the law of torts. Because these tort principles are difficult, if not impossible, to apply in the academic environment, courts have almost universally held that claims of "educational malpractice" are not cognizable. Among other problems for adjudication, these claims involve the judiciary in the awkward tasks of defining what constitutes a reasonable educational program and of deciding whether that standard has been breached.

The parents enrolled their daughter in a private school. The school handbook explained the procedures to be followed when disciplinary sanctions were invoked. However, the parents thereafter learned that their daughter had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings and was placed on probation. Thereafter, she was brought up on charges of missing a tennis practice, although the parents were not informed of the proceedings until shortly before the hearing. The student was dismissed from the school and the parents filed the instant action. The trial court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment, noting that relief was not sought as to the CUTPA claim. Although the first count sounded in educational malpractice, the claim was cognizable due to the alleged violations of specific contractual obligations in the handbook. In other words, the court could use the handbook’s obligations as a basis for a proper judgment.

The court denied school’s motion for summary judgment. “Although this court concludes that the complaint in this matter raises an issue of educational malpractice, the court notes that the plaintiffs have alleged that the defendants have violated specific contractual obligations to conduct the disciplinary process in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Walker Handbook” said the court. “The parents assert that in light of this fact this matter falls within an exception to the usual rule of nonintervention.”

If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

Source: Jacobs v. Ethel Walker Sch., 2003 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2746, 2003 WL 22390051 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 30, 2003)