Henry v. District of Columbia
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120336
D.D.C.2010Background
- D.G., born 1998, was a public school student in DCPS starting October 2006 at Aiton Elementary.
- D.G. exhibited frequent disciplinary issues; teacher recommended evaluation for special education eligibility.
- MDT determined D.G. not eligible for special education in June 2007; an educational evaluation was ordered.
- Independent psychological evaluation in January 2008 diagnosed ADHD; MDT reevaluated in February 2008 and again found ineligible but ordered further evaluation.
- In July 2008, after the evaluation, MDT found D.G. eligible for special education services; Ms. Henry filed a due process complaint April 7, 2009.
- Administrative hearing officer on May 27, 2009 found DCPS should have found eligibility at February 2008 but held no substantial link to compensatory education and dismissed the claim; plaintiff challenged in court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether compensatory education should be awarded | Henry argues DG was denied FAPE and entitled to tailored compensatory education. | Defendants contend the hearing officer properly weighed evidence and did not craft an award. | Remand needed; award must be crafted. |
| Whether the appropriate remedy is for the court to craft an award or remand | Court can fashion an appropriate compensatory education award directly. | Remand to hearing officer to craft the award under Reid standards is proper. | Remand to hearing officer for award crafting within 60 days. |
| Whether the hearing officer erred by not providing an award despite finding denial of FAPE | Failure to award is inconsistent with Reid after finding denial of FAPE. | The officer may have discretion; the record supported dismissal without an award. | Hearing officer erred by not crafting an award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (court reviews IDEA decisions with de novo consideration of relief; preponderance standard; remand possible)
- Brown v. Dist. of Columbia, 568 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2008) (compensatory education available when denial of FAPE proven)
- Friendship Edison Pub. Charter Sch. Collegiate Campus v. Nesbitt, 532 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2008) (agency must craft appropriate compensatory education; cannot rely on insufficiency of record to deny award)
- Suggs v. Dist. of Columbia, 679 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2010) (courts may remand to craft proper relief under Reid standard)
- Kerkam v. McKenzie, 862 F.2d 884 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (need for reasoned, specific findings; deference under IDEA is limited)