Cornett v. Samuels: Irregular Private-School Attendance and Service Gaps Undermine IDEA Reimbursement; Courts Must Independently Weigh Equities

1. Introduction

In Cornett v. Samuels (2d Cir. Feb. 18, 2026) (summary order), the Second Circuit affirmed judgment for the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) and its Chancellor in an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) dispute over tuition reimbursement for a unilateral private placement. Plaintiff-Appellant Donna Cornett, individually and on behalf of her daughter J.B., challenged the DOE’s proposed program for the 2022–2023 school year and sought reimbursement for enrolling J.B. at iBRAIN.

The key issues on appeal were whether Cornett could satisfy the IDEA’s tuition-reimbursement framework—especially whether iBRAIN was an “appropriate” unilateral placement and whether equitable considerations supported reimbursement—where J.B. attended iBRAIN in person only two days per week and other services were delivered by telehealth, alongside concerns about the periodic absence of a 1:1 nurse.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of reimbursement. Even assuming (without deciding) that the DOE denied J.B. a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”), the court held Cornett failed to carry her burden on the second and third prongs of the Burlington-Carter reimbursement analysis:

  • Appropriateness of iBRAIN: The court agreed with the IHO that Cornett did not show iBRAIN was appropriate given J.B.’s lack of attendance and concerns about nursing coverage.
  • Equities: The court held it would be inequitable to require the public to reimburse “hundreds of thousands of dollars” (including for transportation that did not occur) when J.B. did not attend iBRAIN most of the week.

Importantly, the court noted that the district court erred by deferring to the IHO on equitable considerations, because equity must be independently evaluated, but the error was harmless because an independent weighing still cut against reimbursement.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

  • R.E. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 694 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2012)
    The court relied on R.E. for the standard of review: de novo review of a district court’s IDEA summary judgment disposition. This frames the appellate posture—while administrative findings matter, the appellate court is not bound by the district court’s legal conclusions.
  • Ventura de Paulino v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 959 F.3d 519 (2d Cir. 2020)
    Ventura de Paulino supplied the controlling articulation of the tuition-reimbursement framework, including the three-part “Burlington-Carter test” and the allocation of burdens. The opinion uses this authority to emphasize that reimbursement is not automatic upon a FAPE violation; parents must also prove the private placement’s appropriateness and that equities favor reimbursement.
  • C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 826 (2d. Cir. 2014)
    The court cited C.L. for the burden principle: parents bear the burden of showing both that the private placement is appropriate and that the equities weigh in their favor. This citation is central to the outcome because the panel resolved the case on prongs two and three—where the parents’ burden is decisive.
  • Ferreira v. Aviles-Ramos, 120 F.4th 323 (2d Cir. 2024)
    The court invoked Ferreira to correct the district court’s methodology: equitable factors must be evaluated independently by the reviewing court, not deferred to the state administrative agency. The panel then applied that rule and concluded that independent equitable balancing still defeated full reimbursement.

B. Legal Reasoning

  1. Reimbursement can fail even if FAPE is assumed to be denied.
    The court explicitly proceeded on an arguendo assumption that the DOE denied FAPE, yet affirmed because the claim collapsed on the remaining reimbursement prongs. This reflects a practical and doctrinal point: IDEA reimbursement is a structured remedy, not an all-or-nothing consequence of a single procedural or substantive finding.
  2. Appropriateness is functional and fact-intensive.
    The panel credited the IHO’s observations about J.B.’s limited attendance and “periodic absence of the individual nurse.” The underlying premise is that a placement’s appropriateness depends on whether it is actually delivering the specialized instruction and related services the student needs in practice—not merely whether it is well-regarded or theoretically capable.
  3. Equities can independently bar (or reduce) reimbursement.
    The court treated J.B.’s in-person attendance only two days per week—and claimed reimbursement including transportation costs that “did not occur”—as powerful equitable considerations against making the public fisc pay the full amount. The opinion thus underscores that equitable analysis may account for real-world utilization of the services being funded through reimbursement.
  4. Correct standard for reviewing equities, wrong result avoided.
    By flagging the district court’s improper deference and then reweighing equities itself under Ferreira, the panel preserved doctrinal clarity: courts must not outsource equitable judgment to IHOs/SROs, even if the same outcome follows.

C. Impact

  • Reinforces a practical limit on reimbursement where services are not regularly received.
    Future litigants should expect courts to scrutinize attendance, service delivery, and the match between what is billed (or reimbursed) and what is actually provided. Claims for full tuition and transportation may be especially vulnerable where in-person attendance is limited or services are partially remote.
  • Strengthens the salience of the second and third prongs in IDEA litigation strategy.
    The decision signals that parents cannot rely solely on arguments about IEP inadequacy; they must build an evidentiary record that the unilateral placement is appropriate and that equitable conduct and circumstances justify the remedy sought.
  • Procedural discipline: appellate record preparation matters.
    The court’s footnote criticizing the inadequate appendix (missing most of the SRO decision and the IEP) is a cautionary note for counsel: failures in record designation can hinder review and jeopardize presentation of issues.
  • Clarifies the post-Ferreira landscape.
    By reiterating that equitable review is independent, the order helps operationalize Ferreira in IDEA reimbursement cases: district courts must conduct their own equitable balancing, even where agency findings are thorough.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • IDEA / FAPE: The IDEA requires schools to provide eligible students with disabilities a “free appropriate public education”—special education and related services designed to meet the child’s needs.
  • IEP (Individualized Educational Program): The written plan that specifies the student’s educational goals, placement, and services (e.g., therapies, nursing).
  • Unilateral private placement: When parents reject the public IEP and enroll the child in private school without the district’s agreement, then seek reimbursement later.
  • IHO / SRO: In New York, an Impartial Hearing Officer conducts the initial administrative hearing; a State Review Officer hears the administrative appeal.
  • Burlington-Carter test (three-part reimbursement framework): Even if the public program is inadequate, parents must also prove (2) their chosen private placement is appropriate and (3) the balance of fairness (“equities”) supports reimbursement.
  • Equities: A fairness assessment. Courts may consider parent cooperation, timing, reasonableness of costs, and—as highlighted here—whether the services sought to be reimbursed were actually used/received.

5. Conclusion

Cornett v. Samuels reinforces that IDEA tuition reimbursement is not secured merely by contesting an IEP or even establishing (or assuming) a denial of FAPE. Parents must prove the unilateral placement is appropriate in practice and that equitable considerations justify the public paying the requested amount. The decision also applies—and further embeds—the rule from Ferreira v. Aviles-Ramos that district courts must independently weigh equities, while illustrating that limited attendance and service-delivery gaps can be decisive equitable and appropriateness factors against full reimbursement.