LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

UHR v EAST GREENBUSH CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: UHR, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I99_0138, School, Education Law, Private, School Districts, Legislature, Scoliosis, Statute, Screening, Infant Plaintiff, Publication, Enforcement, Purpose, Examination, Liability, Ny2d, Consistent, Supra, Prong, Appellate Division, Common Law Negligence, Authorizes, Parents, Scheme, Evidence, Immunity, Commissioner, Bill Jacket, Cost , ContentID: 120251741

Case Documents
1 1999-10-21 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 125650
7 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 7 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EDUCATION LAW
PRIVATE
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
PLAINTIFFS
LEGISLATURE
SCOLIOSIS
STATUTE
SCREENING
INFANT PLAINTIFF
PUBLICATION
ENFORCEMENT
PURPOSE
EXAMINATION
LIABILITY
NY2D
CONSISTENT
COURT
SUPRA
PRONG
APPELLATE DIVISION
COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE
AUTHORIZES
PARENTS
SCHEME
EVIDENCE
IMMUNITY
COMMISSIONER
BILL JACKET
COST


  EMILY R. UHR, AN INFANT, &C., ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. EAST GREENBUSH CENTRAL
  SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

    94 N.Y.2d 32 (1999).
    October 21, 1999

   3 No. 140

   (99 NY Int. 0138)
   Decided October 21, 1999
     _________________________________________________________________

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Michael W. Kessler, for appellants.
   Leslie B. Neustadt, for respondents.
   New York State School Boards Association, Inc.,
   amicus curiae.

   ROSENBLATT, J.:

   Education Law § 905(1) requires school authorities in the State of
   New York to examine students between eight and sixteen years of age
   for scoliosis at least once in each schoolyear. The principal issue on
   this appeal is whether the statute authorizes a private right of
   action.

   During the 1992-1993 school year, the infant plaintiff was a seventh
   grade student at the Goff Middle School, operated by defendant East
   Greenbush Central School District. In October 1992, as part of a
   school program, a nurse screened her for scoliosis. The results were
   negative. She was examined during the following school year
   (1993-1994) by a school nurse who checked her height, weight and
   vision but allegedly did not screen her for scoliosis. (n.1)

   In March 1995, when the infant plaintiff was a ninth grader during the
   1994-1995 school year at Columbia High School (also operated by the
   East Greenbush Central School District), a school nurse screened her
   for scoliosis and the examination proved positive. Her parents, who
   are also plaintiffs in this action, then had her examined by an
   orthopedic doctor who concluded that her scoliosis had progressed to
   the point that surgery was required instead of the braces that often
   can be utilized when the condition is diagnosed earlier. The infant
   plaintiff underwent surgery in July 1995.
SNIPPETS:
  • This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
  • New York State School Boards Association, Inc., amicus curiae.
  • Education Law § 905requires school authorities in the State of New York to examine students
  • The principal issue on this appeal is whether the statute authorizes a private right of
  • During the 1992-1993 school year, the infant plaintiff was a seventh grade student at the
  • In March 1995, when the infant plaintiff was a ninth grader during the 1994-1995 school year
  • Her parents, who are also plaintiffs in this action, then had her examined by an orthopedic
  • Supreme Court granted the District's motion for summary judgment, holding that Education Law
  • Education Law § 905provides that "othwithstanding any other provisions of any general,
  • Education Law § 911 charges the Commissioner of Education with the duty of enforcing the
  • In Burns Jackson Miller Summit& Spitzer v Lindner (59 NY2d 314, 325) this Court articulated
  • "whether creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme" (Sheehy v
  • The second prong is itself a two-part inquiry.
  • In 1978 the Legislature amended Education Law § 905to add scoliosis screening to the then
  • "The Bill will help reduce the cost of medical care to the general public as well as to the
  • It will reduce hospital utilization as those cases which are detected in their early state
  • the District argues that the risk of liability will prompt school districts to seek waivers
  • Although the District's "waiver" argument is not entirely implausible it is an insufficient
  • We turn next to the third Sheehy prong -- whether a private right of action is consistent
  • The evolution of Education Law § 905is compelling evidence of the Legislature's intent to
  • the District is denied immunity for failing to perform the examination.
  • The Legislature revealed its stance, in support of the District's interpretation, when in
  •    |