LO v. East Allen County School Corporation, 1:11-cv-00178

L.O. is a ninth-grade student in Indiana with PANDAS, OCD, Tourette’s, and ADHD, found eligible for special education.
Administrative proceedings contested whether L.O. was denied a FAPE and whether compensatory services were due after an IHO decision.
IHO concluded L.O. was entitled to compensatory educational services and to certain additional evaluations.
L.O. sought attorneys’ fees as a prevailing party under IDEA; the School appealed several IHO orders on summary judgment.
The court reviews legal issues de novo and factual findings for substantial deference to the IHO, with amendment of one issue (Issue 19) during the proceedings.
The court ultimately struck several IHO orders and amended conclusion of law related to compensatory education.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Order 1 to implement the 2010 IEP proper?	L.O. was entitled to consistent accommodations and the IEP should govern.	The IEP had already been implemented; Order 1 was redundant and improper.	Struck; order superseded by existing implementation.
Were Orders 2 and 3 (counseling assessment, assistive technology) warranted?	Evidence suggested potential needs for counseling and assistive tech.	No substantial evidence these evaluations were necessary.	Struck; the orders were unsupported.
Was Order 4 awarding compensatory education for 2009-2010 justified?	School failed to identify and provide needed services earlier; compensatory education appropriate.	Evidence did not show a definitive school failure; no basis for compensatory education.	Struck; amended finding did not establish a proper basis for compensatory services.
Was Order 5 requiring steps to prevent bullying supported by evidence?	Incidents showed harassment; order necessary to protect FAPE.	Incidents could not have been anticipated; no FAPE denial established.	Struck; not supported by evidence of violation.
Was Order 6 to convene a case conference on measurability of goals proper?	Goals must be measurable under IDEA; need clarifying conference.	No violation found; order unnecessary as restatement of legal obligations.	Struck; remedy not supported by violation.

Bingham v. New Berlin School Dist., 550 F.3d 601 (7th Cir. 2008) (material alteration required to be prevailing party for fees)
Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1992) (prevailing party status depends on degree of success)
Giosta v. Midland School Dist. 7, 542 F. App’x 523 (7th Cir. 2013) (fee-shifting and prevailing party standards in IDEA context)
Marshall Jt. Sch. Dist. No. 2 v. C.D., 616 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2010) (de novo review on legal issues under IDEA/state law)
Alex R. v. Forrestville Valley Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 221, 375 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2004) (deference to IHO on factual findings; de novo when reviewing law)