Appendix A: California Department of Education (CDE) K.C. Settlement Agreement and Legal Advisory III. The IDEA and Students With Diabetes Who Require Diabetes Health Related Services During the Day In Order to Safely Attend K-12 Schools in California IV. Who May Administer Insulin in California to Students with Diabetes As a Related Service Under Section 504 and the IDEA
V.
Monitoring and Compliance by CDE
VI.
Impartial Due Process Hearings
VII.
Resources
Checklist
Footnotes
I. The Applicability of Two Federal Anti-Discrimination Statutes (Section 504 and the ADA) to those Public School Students with Diabetes Who Require Diabetes Health Related Services While Attending K-12 Schools in California Two federal anti-discrimination statutes, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), together establish rights for eligible students with diabetes in California’s public schools. Together, they serve to protect such students from discrimination based upon their disability including the right to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The two statutory schemes are treated synonymously. (Wong v. Regents of University of California, 192 F.3d 807, 81 6 n. 26.) Hence, in this Legal Advisory, Section 504 will mean both Section 504 as well as the ADA unless otherwise noted.
A. Eligibility
In general, a student will be determined to have a disability under Section 504 if he/she has a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, such as eating, breathing, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, hearing, speaking, walking, and learning. (See 34 CFR sec. 104.4, subds. (j), (k), and (i) .) Accordingly, learning is not the only major life activity that must be considered when determining eligibility under Section 504. ( Rock Hill (OH) Local Schools, 37 IDELR 222 (OCR 2002) .) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently determined that diabetes is a “physical impairment” and then addressed whether that impairment substantially limited a major life activity under the facts of that case. ( Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2003) .) In finding that the plaintiff had presented evidence that she was substantially limited in eating, the court noted that the plaintiff was required to be vigilant about testing blood glucose levels and adjusting food intake, insulin and physical activity accordingly . Id. at 1040-1041 .
BP 2006 – Provision of Healthcare Services
Page 12
Desert Mountain Special Education Local Plan Area (DMSELPA) (rev. 11/16)
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator