780 F. Supp. 2d 49
D.D.C.2011Background
- D.L., a thirteen-year-old in DC, was evaluated for special education needs beginning with an October 2006 psycho-educational assessment by Roots PCS's MDT and Dr. Mack.
- DCPS, the LEA for Roots PCS, did not complete the recommended tests or provide services following the 2006 evaluation, triggering Child Find concerns.
- In March 2009, an MDT convened; the parties disputed when notice of the 2006 evaluation was received; DCPS ultimately considered the 2006 assessment in evaluating D.L. for eligibility.
- May 2009 MDT found D.L. eligible for special education; an IEP was developed (15 hours/week of specialized instruction, 30 minutes/week behavioral support, 1 hour/month speech) but plaintiffs contested its sufficiency and placement at Brightwood.
- The Hearing Officer dismissed the Amended Due Process Complaint in August 2009; plaintiffs filed suit under IDEA § 1415(i)(2)(A) challenging the decision, prompting cross motions for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCPS violated Child Find by delaying identification | Long asserts DCPS knew of 2006 evaluation but delayed action. | DCPS argues notice arose at March 2009 MDT and was timely. | Plaintiffs prevail; DCPS violated Child Find by delaying eligibility determination. |
| Whether the IEP and services were reasonably calculated to provide a FAPE | IEP lacked social/emotional goals and sufficient specialized instruction. | IEP provided appropriate services; missing page does not negate validity. | IEP was not shown to be inadequate; not a denial of FAPE. |
| Whether Brightwood was an appropriate placement for D.L. | Brightwood could not implement the IEP; plaintiff was not adequately allowed to participate. | Brightwood could implement the IEP; plaintiff participated in MDTs. | Brightwood deemed appropriate; participation concerns insufficient to show denial of FAPE. |
| Whether DCPS failed to evaluate D.L. in all areas, including BIP/FBA and OT | BIP/FBA and OT evaluations were warranted; failure to complete them denied FAPE. | BIP/FBA requests were late or not properly raised; OT was moot or ordered. | Failure to complete BIP/FBA constituted denial of FAPE; case remanded to address compensatory education. |
| Whether D.L. is entitled to compensatory education for prior FAPE denial | D.L. suffered harm from 2006–2009 due to inaction; compensatory education warranted. | Harm and remedies not sufficiently proven; compensation should be tailored. | Remand for compensatory education remedy; district court to craft appropriate compensation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Branham v. Gov't of the District of Columbia, 427 F.3d 7 (D.C.Cir. 2005) (identification duties under IDEA and need for IEP)
- Bd. of Educ. Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to provide educational benefits)
- Angevine v. Smith, 959 F.2d 292 (D.C.Cir. 1992) (burden of proof in IDEA review; deference to administrative proceedings)
- Kerkam v. McKenzie, 862 F.2d 884 (D.C.Cir. 1988) (parental involvement and deference to school decisions in IDEA)
- Lyons v. Smith, 829 F. Supp. 414 (D.D.C. 1993) (due weight to administrative proceedings and expertise)
- Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C.Cir. 2005) (compensatory education; fact-specific remand for remedy)