Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a minor with dyslexia, by and through her mother and Guardian Ad Litem, appealed from the district court's order affirming the Administrative Hearing Officer's conclusion that the Hawaii Department of Education (DOE) properly found plaintiff ineligible for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. The court held that the DOE procedurally violated the IDEA by applying regulations that required exclusive reliance on the "severe discrepancy model" at plaintiff's final eligibility meeting. This violation deprived plaintiff of a significant educational opportunity because it resulted in an erroneous eligibility determination. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order affirming the Hearing Officer's decision and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff, an eleven-year-old special education student, lived in the Minnesota Independent School District No. 15 (district). An ALJ for the Minnesota Department of Education determined that the district had denied plaintiff a free appropriate public education (FAPE) within the meaning of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400-1482. After plaintiff filed an action in federal court seeking attorney fees and costs, both parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record. The district court reversed the ALJ's decision and denied plaintiff's motion for fees and costs and plaintiff appealed. The court affirmed the district court's judgment and held that plaintiff was not denied a FAPE where the district court did not fail to give "due weight" to the results of the administrative hearing; where the district court did not commit procedural violations of the IDEA; and where the district court did not violate the IDEA's substantive requirements.

The court agreed to rehear this case en banc to clarify under what circumstances the exhaustion requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1415(l), barred non-IDEA federal or state law claims. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and her son, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants where the district court dismissed her claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff did not initially seek relief in a due process hearing and therefore, failed to comply with one of the exhaustion-of-remedies requirement of the IDEA. The court held that the IDEA's exhaustion requirement was not jurisdictional and that plaintiff's non-IDEA federal and state-law claims were not subject to the IDEA's exhaustion requirement. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment.

The parents of E.M., a bilingual student, brought an action to challenge the Pajaro Valley Unified School District's (District) determination that E.M. did not qualify for special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. The Special Education Division of the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the District's assessment and the district court affirmed the OAH's decision. The court disagreed with the district court's assessment only to the extent that it found one claim not addressed and one report not measured for its relevance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court in part and reversed in part. The court remanded for the district court to consider whether the report was relevant to the determination of whether the district met its obligations to E.M. under the IDEA and whether an auditory processing disorder could qualify as an other health impairment, and if so, whether the district met its obligations to assess E.M. and identify him as a child with an other health impairment.

The parents of E.M., a bilingual student, brought an action to challenge the Pajaro Valley Unified School District's (District) determination that E.M. did not qualify for special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. The Special Education Division of the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the District's assessment and the district court affirmed the OAH's decision. The court disagreed with the district court's assessment only to the extent that it found one claim not addressed and one report not measured for its relevance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court in part and reversed in part. The court remanded for the district court to consider whether the report was relevant to the determination of whether the district met its obligations to E.M. under the IDEA and whether an auditory processing disorder could qualify as an other health impairment, and if so, whether the district met its obligations to assess E.M. and identify him as a child with an other health impairment.

Plaintiff, the mother of a developmentally disabled high school student, alleged that the several sexual encounters her daughter had with another developmentally disabled student in a school bathroom were the result of the school's failure to properly supervise her daughter. At issue was whether plaintiff, individually and on behalf of her daughter, had a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against the daughter's special education teacher. The court held that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil rights claim at summary judgment where the special-relationship exception and the state-created danger exception did not apply in this case. The court held that whatever liability the special education teacher faced, that liability must come from state tort law, not the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

The District of Columbia filed this suit to recover its attorneys' fees from a lawyer who brought an administrative complaint against the District on behalf of a student with special educational needs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400(d)(1)(A). At issue was whether the District was a "prevailing party" under the IDEA in this suit. The court held that the facts in this case followed closely in the wake of the court's precedent in District of Columbia v. Straus where that court held that the district was not a "prevailing party" where its own change of position was what had mooted the dispute, causing the case to be dismissed. Therefore, the court held that the District, in this case, was not a "prevailing party" where the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) authorized an independent comprehensive psychological evaluation for the student, which mooted the only issue before the hearing officer. Accordingly, the district court's grant of summary judgment ordering the lawyer to pay attorneys' fees was reversed.

Appellants, on behalf of their disabled daughter, appealed the district court's finding that the Fort Osage R-1 School District ("school district") offered the daughter a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") within the meaning of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. 1400, et seq., for the 2006-2007 school year. Appellants sought reimbursement for their costs of placing their daughter at a private facility during the school year. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that the school district offered the daughter a FAPE and that the Individualized Education Plan put forward by the school district did not suffer from any procedural error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

A.S., a California minor, filed a request for a special education due process hearing where he was eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., as an emotionally disturbed child. At issue was which California agency was responsible for funding a special education student's placement in an out-of-state residential treatment facility. The court requested the California Supreme Court exercise its discretion and decide the following certified question, "Whether under California law the school district responsible for the costs of a special education student's education while the student is placed at an out-of-state residential treatment facility is the district in which the student's de facto parent, who is authorized to make educational decisions on behalf of the student, resides."

Appellees, the parents of a child with moderate-to-severe autism, filed due process proceedings against the Sumter County School District #17 ("District") seeking a determination that the District did not provide a free and appropriate public education ("FAPE") to the child as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(1)(A). At issue was whether the district court erred by concluding that the District failed to provide the child with a FAPE and that the program established by the child's parents to educate him at home was appropriate. The court held that that the district court did not err in concluding that the District failed to provide the child with FAPE for the 2005-2006 school year where the district court considered the evidence of the child's small improvements in a few tested areas against the District's conceded failure to provide the hours of therapy required for the child, the evidence that the lead teacher and aides did not understand or use proper techniques, and the evidence that it took one teacher months of working with the child to correct the problems caused by the improper techniques. The court also held that the district court did not err by finding that the District was not capable of providing FAPE to the child where the District's evidence was not compelling enough to establish it's improved capabilities at the time of the due process hearing. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's findings that the home placement was reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.