emphasize, instead, the disciplinary nature of the school officials' actions and their educational source; they do not seem to depend upon a finding that the specific disciplinary matter about which the plaintiff complains was addressed in that student's IEP. 6 . In Crocker I, this court held that parents suing under the IDEA were required to exhaust their administrative remedies. See Crocker I, 873 F.2d at 936. In a subsequent appeal after remand, this court held that those plaintiffs could not obtain general damages under the IDEA for emotional or dignitary injuries, nor could they do so by bringing a § 1983 suit for such general damages based on violations of the IDEA. See Crocker II, 980 F.2d at 386-87; see also Hall v. Knott County Bd. of Educ., 941 F.2d 402, 406-07 (6th Cir.3991) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1077, 112 S.Ct. 982,
holding that plaintiffs can obtain reimbursement for past or future educational expenses under the idea but not general damages such as compensation for lost earning power holding reimbursement for private tutoring available under the idea holding plaintiffs could not obtain compensation for both lost value and lost profit holding that prejudgment interest may properly be added to damage awards for past lost wages medical expenses that have been incurred and past pain and suffering but not future loss of earnings future medical expenses andor future pain and suffering holding that damages are not relief that is available under the idea