20 F. Supp. 3d 31
D.D.C.2013Background
- M.O. and her parents sue the District of Columbia for FAPE under the IDEA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Cross motions for summary judgment are filed; Magistrate Judge Facciola recommends denial and remand to the hearing officer.
- The court adopts the recommendation, denies both motions without prejudice, vacates the hearing officer’s decision, and remands for further evaluation of the evidence.
- Numerous evaluations (Elitov, Silver, Riverso, Mounce, etc.) and evaluations from Lab School support a low student‑teacher ratio and specialized services for M.O.
- The District issued a November 17, 2010 IEP proposing placement at Janney Elementary with an aide and general education inclusion, which the parents rejected in favor of the Lab School.
- The administrative due process complaint identified three issues related to the 2010/2011 IEP; the hearing officer’s decision addressed those issues but did not resolve all challenges raised by the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of information-review issue | M.O.'s parents argue the issue is intertwined with FAPE adequacy and should be considered. | The issue was not raised in the administrative complaint or pre-hearing order and is waived. | Waived; not properly raiseable at due process. |
| Hearing officer's consideration of all evidence | HB ignored substantial conflicting evidence and did not address professional evaluations. | Hearing officer appropriately weighed evidence within IDEA framework. | Remand for fuller consideration and reasoning. |
| Adequacy of the 2010 November IEP to provide FAPE | IEP failed to incorporate critical evaluations and supports; placement and services inadequate. | IEP offered substantial special education and related services in a least restrictive environment. | Remand to reevaluate and explain credibility of evidence. |
| Appropriateness of Lab School vs. Janney placement | District did not adequately justify denial of Lab School and need for intensive supports. | District's placement and services were reasonably calculated to provide benefit. | Remand to address evidentiary support for placement choice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerkam v. McKenzie, 862 F.2d 884 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (court required reasoned administrative findings and deference tailored to the record)
- Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (less deference to agency decisions when evaluating IDEA determinations under de novo review)
- Iowa v. FCC, 218 F.3d 756 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (remand when agency decision lacks adequate reasoning)
- Gellert v. District of Columbia Public Schools, 435 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 2006) (discussion of procedural issues and parent's information considerations (state-court reporter cited))