Tatro vs.

Texas

Tatro vs. Texas

Professor Hooks
EDU 203
Hayli Jarvis

Tatro vs. Texas

Amber Tatro was an eight-year-old girl who was born with spina bifida. She suffered
from orthopedic and speech impairments and a neurogenic bladder, which prevents her from
emptying her bladder voluntarily. Due to her condition, she needs to be catheterized every three
to four hours to avoid injury to her kidneys. In 1979, when Amber was only three and a half
years old, the Irving Independent School District agreed to provide special education to her. This
allowed for Amber to attend early childhood development classes and receive physical and
occupational therapy, however, her IEP made no provision for the school personnel to administer
the catheter.
Ambers parents and other supporters were unsuccessful in trying to persuade
administrators to provide clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) during school hours which lead
to the issue being brought the District Courts against the State Board of Education. Because
Texas received funding under the Education of Handicapped Act, the petitioner was required to
provide Amber with a free appropriate public education, in which the definition includes
related services. The respondents argued that Ambers need of a catheter, does in fact fall
under related services. The section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which forbids that by
reason of a handicap, an individual be excluded from the participation in, denied benefits of, or
be subjected to discrimination under any program receiving federal aid, was also invoked.
Tatro vs. Texas got to the Supreme Court due to the District denying the respondents
request. The court concluded that the CIC was not a related service because it did not come
from the effort to educate. It was also said that 504 of the Rehabilitation Act did not require the
setting up of governmental health care for people seeking to participate in federally funded
programs.

Tatro vs. Texas

The denial was revered, stating that a CIC was in fact a related service because with it,
Amber would not be able to attend class and benefit from special education. It was also stated
that the petitioners refusal to provide Ambers catheter excluded her from a federally funded
educational program, which violated 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
This specific case was crucial in defining the extent of related services and created the
medical exception rule. Due to this landmark case, the District must provide all supportive
services necessary unless a doctor is needed to provide the service. Since a nurse is able to
provide the service needed for Amber, they must provide it. With certain medical needs not under
the related services category, Amber along with other children in need of certain services, will
now be able to receive a full and uninterrupted education.