D.K. Ex Rel. Stephen K. v. Abington School District
696 F.3d 233
3rd Cir.2012Background
- D.K. attended Copper Beech Elementary in Abington SD with ongoing reading and behavioral issues starting in kindergarten (2003).
- During 2003–2005, teachers observed behavioral problems, tantrums, and organizational deficits; no formal ADHD diagnosis or special education referral occurred yet.
- A 2006 evaluation found D.K. average to low-average in tests and did not indicate need for special education; parents approved the evaluation results and D.K. was promoted to second grade.
- In 2007 private evaluations and pediatric neurology assessments suggested ADHD and need for accommodations; SD conducted a second formal evaluation and offered an IEP in November 2007.
- Parents requested a due process hearing in January 2008 under IDEA; district/agency decisions denied relief, leading to court review.
- District Court and Third Circuit applied strict IDEA statute of limitations and declined equitable tolling, holding claims limited to after Jan 8, 2006, and finding no Child Find or FAPE violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IDEA statute of limitations was properly applied and exemptions available. | Huot argues misrepresentations or withheld information toll the period. | Abington relies on enumerated exceptions only; tolling requires intentional misrepresentation or withholding as defined. | No tolling; exceptions not proven; limitations period applies. |
| Whether the district failed Child Find or denied a FAPE by late identification and testing. | Parents assert failure to identify disability earlier and use of inadequate testing violated IDEA/§504 and harmed education. | District adequately monitored, accommodated, and tested; no DENIAL of FAPE occurred. | No sustained Child Find or FAPE violation; compensatory education not warranted. |
| Whether equitable tolling doctrines or common law tolling apply to extend the statute. | Minority tolling or school-prevented knowledge could toll. | Enumerated statutory exceptions are exclusive; common law tolling does not apply. | Equitable tolling does not apply; only statutory exceptions may toll. |
| Whether the district court properly admitted or excluded new evidence (Dr. Perlis and PDE Guidelines). | New expert/report should be admitted for completeness. | Evidence largely duplicative or non-binding; guidelines are non-binding. | District Court did not abuse discretion in excluding late evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- P.P. ex rel. Michael P. v. West Chester Area Sch. Dist., 585 F.3d 727 (3d Cir. 2009) (IDEA remedies and Child Find; substantial deference to agency findings)
- Steven I. v. Cent. Bucks Sch. Dist., 618 F.3d 411 (3d Cir. 2010) (IDEA statute of limitations applies to pre- and post-enactment conduct)
- M.R. ex rel. J.C. v. Cent. Reg. Sch. Dist., 680 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2012) (Compensatory education and Child Find; continuing obligation under IDEA)
- Lauren W. ex rel. Jean W. v. DeFlaminis, 480 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2007) (Basis for compensatory education when education is inappropriate)