A case that directly involves occupational therapy under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) may go before the U.S. Supreme Court next winter if the court chooses to hear it. The outcome could affect the way all related services are delivered in the schools.

In Jacob Winkelman et al. vs. the Parma (Ohio) City School District, a child with autism is asking the high court to overturn a 6^thCircuit Court of Appeals ruling that would allow courts to make decisions about the need for related public school services based on things other that what is written in a child's Individualized Education Program (IEP).

Jacob Winkelman was 6 years old in the spring of 2003 when he was set to begin his kindergarten year in the Parma City School District in Parma, Ohio. Jacob had already been receiving therapy at his pre-school, and in preparation for the 2003-2004 school year, the school district had conducted an evaluation of Jacob's needs. According to a statement of relevant facts in the case, in May 2003, based on that evaluation, his OT recommended that therapy be continued because the boy was progressing well with it where he was. The school agreed and signed a team summary and interpretation-of-evaluation document to that effect for continued OT through the summer.

The following month, however, the district presented the family with an IEP the parents hadn't agreed upon; it required Jacob to be re-evaluated for continuing OT services by Sept. 30 in order to receive them in elementary school. The IEP also did not guarantee him other related services that his parents felt had been agreed upon. Jacob's parents took him out of the public schools and enrolled him in a private school. When an administrative hearing officer ruled against their complaint, they filed a lawsuit in federal court.

The school district won its case in three appellate courts by bringing in information supporting its ability to provide such services even if they weren't on the IEP. But in three other appeals, circuit courts ruled against the district, saying that the IEP is the only document of record in such cases.

At issue in this debate, says Attorney Prashant Khetan of Troutman Sanders LLP in Washington, DC, is holding school officials to the bar in obeying the law. His law firm is filing friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of Jacob Winkelman's request to have the Supreme Court hear the case.

"The 6^thCircuit has given the schools the ability to not put any related services into an IEP," he told ADVANCE. "They will be able to say at any time, 'well, we intend to put it in at some point,' and [if the case goes to court] you end up with a 'he said-she said' situation."

Seven organizations, including AOTA, have filed amici briefs in the case.

Whether the high court will hear the case is still at issue. The Supreme Court must sort through some 5,000 pleas from petitioners who seek to have their cases heard each year. Four of the seven justices must agree that a case should be heard in order to place in on the docket.