R.H. v. Plano Independent School District

607 F.3d 1003 (2010)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

R.H. v. Plano Independent School District

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
607 F.3d 1003 (2010)

  • Written by Jody Stuart, JD

Facts

The Plano Independent School District (Plano) (defendant) developed an individualized education plan (IEP) for R.H. (plaintiff) because of R.H.’s suspected autism and a speech impairment. The IEP placed R.H. at Beaty Early Childhood School (Beaty), a public preschool, in a special-education class. At Beaty, R.H. also received supplemental services, including speech-therapy sessions. Out of concern for R.H.’s progress, R.H.’s parents withdrew R.H. from Beaty and enrolled him at TLC, a private preschool with fully mainstreamed—i.e., regular—classes. TLC did not have a speech therapist on staff. R.H., through his parents, requested a due-process hearing to obtain reimbursement for TLC’s tuition costs. R.H. alleged that Plano had failed to place him in the least restrictive environment for his education, in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (act). At the due-process hearing, Susie Vaughn, the principal at Beaty, testified that because of the needs identified in R.H.’s IEP, including a low staff-to-student ratio, a special-education teacher with knowledge of autism, and regular collaboration with a speech therapist, Plano could not be confident that the IEP could be implemented in a regular private-school setting without Plano’s direct supervision. Vaughn further testified that Plano had considered whether R.H.’s IEP could be implemented in a regular private-school setting but had not recommended that school setting. The hearing officer found that Plano had considered placing R.H. in a fully mainstreamed environment but rejected that option. The hearing officer found in favor of Plano. R.H. sued Plano in federal district court. The district court affirmed the hearing officer’s ruling. R.H. appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Smith, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 798,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 798,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 798,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership