This case began with the 2007 Legal Advisory that settled the case K.C. v. O'Connell (ED-CA-0010). That case began in 2005, with parents of four students and the American Diabetes Association suing the California Board of Education in federal court for failing to meet their obligations to diabetic students. A central problem was that students who were unable to self-administer insulin and who were in schools without a full-time school nurse on duty had to wait for parents to come to school to administer insulin, stay home from school, or receive insulin more infrequently than their doctors preferred. The 2007 Legal Advisory attempted to resolve this problem by specifying categories of people who were qualified to administer insulin, including the category ("category 8") at dispute in this suit: "a voluntary school employee who is unlicensed but who has been adequately trained to administer insulin pursuant to the student's treating physician's orders as required by the Section 504 plan or the IEP."

In this case, in 2007 the American Nurses' Association challenged the Legal Advisory in state court, seeking a mandate declaring it invalid regarding category 8 on the basis that state law does not authorize unlicensed school personnel to administer insulin. The Sacramento County Superior Court and the Court of Appeal found for the ANA, declaring the 2007 Legal Advisory illegal, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of California.

On August 12, 2013, the Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that California law does in fact allow trained (though unlicensed) personnel to administer prescription medications, including insulin, in accordance with written statements of individual students' treating physicians. 57 Cal.App.4th 570.

The documents in the Clearinghouse reflect the documents available on the internet at this time.

Claire Lally - 11/25/2014


compress summary