1. Whether Education Law § 905(1), which requires school districts to examine students for scoliosis once per school year, authorizes a private right of action.

2. Whether the school district was negligent for failing to examine Plaintiff during one school year.

1. No. A private right of action does not exist under Education Law § 905(1), and Plaintiff failed to state a claim for common law negligence.

2. No. Plaintiff failed to state a claim for common law negligence.

Infant Plaintiff was a student at Goff Middle School. During the 1992-1993 school year, a school nurse screened Plaintiff for scoliosis, pursuant to the requirements of Education Law § 905(1), which provides that New York State school authorities must examine students between the ages of eight and sixteen for scoliosis. The results from the test were negative. There was no record of a screening in the 1993-1994 school year. In 1995, the infant Plaintiff was again screened for scoliosis, this time at Columbia High School (which is in the same District as Goff Middle School). The results were positive. Plaintiff's doctor concluded that the child's scoliosis had progressed to the point where surgery, rather than less expensive and invasive braces, would be necessary.

Plaintiff alleged two causes of action. The first was that the District violated Education Law § 905(1). The second was that the District was negligent in failing to screen for scoliosis in the 1993-1994 school year. The Supreme Court granted the District's motion for summary judgment, finding that Education Law § 905(1) does not support a private cause of action, and that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under common law negligence. The Appellate Division affirmed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court first addressed Plaintiff's claim that Education Law § 905(1) provides a private cause of action. The Court noted that a statutory requirement does not necessarily allow enforcement by private parties through tort litigation. In order to bring a private action, a plaintiff must satisfy the three-part test articulated in Sheehy v. Big Flats Community Day, 73 N.Y.2d 629. The Court found that the first two prongs of the test were satisfied: first, that the statute was enacted for public benefit, and second, that a private right of action might further its objective. The Court, however, found that the third prong was not met; a private right of action would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme. The legislative history of the statute clearly indicated that the Legislature intended to immunize school districts from liability that might arise from the scoliosis screening program. Thus, a private right of action to enforce Education Law § 905(1) does not exist.

The Court also affirmed the lower courts' determination that, as a matter of law, Plaintiff did not state a claim under common law negligence.