ISD No. 283 v. E.M.D.H., a minor, 960 F.3d 1073

Background

Student (E.M.D.H.) suffered longstanding mental-health disorders (anxiety, panic/agoraphobia, autism-spectrum traits, OCD traits, ADHD, major depressive disorder) that caused chronic school absence and social isolation beginning in middle school.
District repeatedly disenrolled Student during 8th–11th grades; parents requested special-education evaluation in April 2017 after independent clinical evaluations confirmed diagnoses and functional impairment.
District completed an eligibility evaluation but did not perform required functional behavioral assessments or systematic observations (including in nonclassroom settings) and concluded Student was not eligible for special education.
Parents filed an administrative due-process complaint; after a seven-day hearing the ALJ found District violated IDEA and state law, ordered eligibility, an IEP, quarterly IEP meetings, reimbursement of over $25,000 in parental expenses, and compensatory private tutoring and participation of private providers in IEP meetings.
District appealed to federal court; the district court affirmed the ALJ except it reversed the award of future compensatory private tutoring; on further appeal this court reinstated the ALJ’s compensatory-tutoring award while affirming other remedial orders and upheld denial of supplementation of the administrative record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion by denying supplementation of the administrative record	Declarations would show Student’s post-ALJ progress and are relevant	Declarations were immaterial to whether pre-hearing services were adequate	Denial was not an abuse of discretion; even if error, it was harmless
Sufficiency of District’s special-education evaluation	Evaluation was legally deficient because it lacked required functional behavioral assessment and systematic observations	Evaluation was adequate; absences made comprehensive evaluation impracticable	Evaluation was insufficient under IDEA and Minnesota rules; District should have used nonclassroom observations and other data
Eligibility / child-find obligation (was Student a "child with a disability" and when should District have identified her)	Student’s disorders caused long-term impairment and educational harm; District failed to identify her beginning in 8th grade	Student’s high intellectual ability and sporadic presence meant she did not need services; any child-find claim is time-barred	Student met criteria for serious emotional disturbance and other health impairment; District breached continuing child-find duty so claims within limitations period survived
Appropriate remedies (reimbursement, IEP meetings, compensatory education/tutoring)	Reimbursement and compensatory tutoring were necessary to remedy denial of FAPE; quarterly IEPs appropriate	District argued it should not reimburse or provide compensatory tutoring and questioned ongoing quarterly meetings	Court upheld reimbursement of past evaluation and tutoring expenses and quarterly IEPs; reinstated ALJ’s award of compensatory private tutoring until credit deficits caused by denial of FAPE are remedied

Key Cases Cited

W. Platte R-II Sch. Dist. v. Wilson ex rel. L.W., 439 F.3d 782 (8th Cir. 2006) (administrative-record supplementation is disfavored when evidence concerns post-hearing progress)
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 283 v. S.D. ex rel. J.D., 88 F.3d 556 (8th Cir. 1996) (requiring solid justification to supplement administrative record)
C.B. ex rel. B.B. v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 636 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review in IDEA appeals: independent decision with due weight to administrative findings)
Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (courts must give due deference to educational authorities on policy)
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 284 v. A.C. ex rel. C.C., 258 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2001) (IDEA covers students whose noncognitive impairments cause educational harm)
Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. Re-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable progress and be appropriately ambitious)
Sch. Comm. v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (1985) (courts have broad discretion to order remedies under IDEA, including reimbursement)
Miener ex rel. Miener v. Missouri, 800 F.2d 749 (8th Cir. 1986) (compensatory education restores lost educational opportunity due to FAPE denial)
J.B. ex rel. Bailey v. Arvilla R-XIII Sch. Dist., 721 F.3d 588 (8th Cir. 2013) (compensatory education is an available remedy under IDEA)
Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (2009) (child-find and related IDEA obligations are of paramount importance)