Skip to Main Content 
Home Arrow Icon Laws & Regulations Arrow Icon Appeal Decisions Arrow Icon Appeal Decisions -- Search & Display

Appeal Decisions


Keyword    Type   
1 Matching Record
If you have questions contact Nicole Proesch, legal counsel for the Department and the State Board,
at 515-281-8661 or
BOOK: 22 
MONTH-YEAR: June - 2004
IN RE: In re Bryan B.
APPELLANT: Bill B./Janet & James Y.
APPELLEE: DHS, G&G Living Centers, Oelwein, Starmont, Guttenberg, AEA 1
KEYWORDS: Jurisdiction
DETAILS: The primary issue is whether portions of the services provided by G & G to Bryan, pursuant to a contract for Medicaid services with DHS, constitute "special education and related services" under IDEA. If the answer is that portions of Bryans active treatment plan do constitute IDEA services or programs, Appellants can continue with this proceeding to challenge the plan components and implementations of the plan under Medicaid regulations.  If the Medicaid law under which those plans were developed is a totally and distinct authority from the IDEA, the Department and ALJ have no legal authority to be the conduit which allows the Appellants an opportunity to challenge the Medicaid originated plans.
  The real issue is whether an active treatment plan can be special education and related services under the IDEA; or, it is a program provided under the Medicaid laws and not subject to IDEA jurisdiction. The concept of education under the IDEA is broader than areas of traditional academic subjects.  The concept of medical treatment under Medicaid is broader than tsraditional physical health issues.  What is not always known is where school education dueties end and social services/health duties begin. 
  Bryan is receiving Medicaid services at G&G through an entirely different system of eligibility, monitoring responsibility and different due process safeguards than are provided under IDEA.  G&Gs active treatment plan is not subject to Department or ALJ review.  Only Guttenbergs IEP and placement provided Bryan are subject to the Departments and ALJs jurisdiction and they are not at issue in this hearing.