Hoffman v. Board of Education, 49 N.Y.2d 121 (1980)
r
r
Courts will not entertain claims of educational malpractice, as they involve substituting judicial judgment for the professional expertise of educators in the complex and delicate process of educating children.
r
r
Summary
r
Daniel Hoffman sued the Board of Education, alleging negligence in assessing his intellectual ability and failing to retest him, leading to improper placement in a program for children with retarded mental development (CRMD). The New York Court of Appeals reversed a judgment for Hoffman, holding that such claims constitute “educational malpractice” and are not cognizable in court. The court reasoned that educational decisions involve professional judgment best left to educators, and judicial intervention would inappropriately substitute the court’s judgment for that of educational experts and open the floodgates to lawsuits challenging educational methodologies.
r
r
Facts
r
In 1956, Daniel Hoffman entered kindergarten and was evaluated by a school psychologist, Dr. Gottsegen, who determined he had an IQ of 74. Due to Hoffman’s severe speech defect, Dr. Gottsegen was uncertain about his findings and recommended re-evaluation within two years. Hoffman was placed in a CRMD program. Despite showing ‘reading readiness’ in 1959 and 1960, his achievement tests consistently indicated limited reading and math skills. In 1969, at his mother’s request, Hoffman was retested and found to have a normal IQ, making him ineligible for the manual training center for retarded youths he was then attending.
r
r
Procedural History
r
Hoffman sued the Board of Education, claiming negligence in the initial assessment and failure to retest, leading to misclassification and damages. The trial court awarded Hoffman $750,000. The Appellate Division affirmed the liability finding but reduced the award to $500,000 after finding the original amount excessive. The Board of Education appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether public policy precludes recovery for an alleged failure to properly evaluate a student’s intellectual capacity, thereby giving rise to a cause of action for educational malpractice.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because courts should not interfere with the professional judgment of educators in the administration of public schools; disputes concerning student placement are best resolved through administrative processes rather than litigation.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The court characterized Hoffman’s claim as