California School Litigation Materials

This page contains pleadings and other litigation materials related to the Association's involvement in litigation to ensure proper care for students with diabetes in California schools, including a lawsuit brought by the Association in 2005 and settled in 2007, and subsequent litigation brought against the California Department of Education (CDE) challenging part of that settlement.

K.C., et al . v. O'Connell, et al.

The Association (along with four families of children with diabetes) filed this lawsuit in October 2005 against the CDE and two California school districts alleging that the districts had failed to provide adequate diabetes care and that the CDE failed to ensure that local districts met their obligations under federal law to serve students with diabetes. In 2007, the Association entered into separate settlement agreements with the CDE and with the local school districts. The landmark settlement with the CDE involved commitments by CDE to issue a Legal Advisory clarifying the legal rights of students with diabetes, and to increase its efforts to monitor local district compliance with federal laws requiring services for students with diabetes.

American Nurses Association, et al., v. Torlakson, et al. (formerly known as American Nurses Association, et al., v. O'Connell et al.)

Four nursing organizations sued the CDE following the settlement of the K.C. litigation seeking to invalidate, through a petition for writ of mandate, the part of that settlement which permits unlicensed school personnel to administer insulin to students eligible for services under Section 504 or IDEA where a school nurse is not available. The Association intervened in the case to protect the rights of California students with diabetes to receive insulin administration when needed at school. A state trial court and the Third District appellate court ruled in favor of the nursing organizations, but the California Supreme Court granted review of the case in September 2010, and the case will be argued before that court on May 29, 2013. A final ruling on the case is expected in the summer of 2013. The lower court rulings are stayed pending the outcome of Supreme Court review.