Michael P. v. Department of Education
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18616
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Courtney G., a minor with dyslexia, was denied special education services under IDEA by Hawaii DOE based on a sole reliance on a severe discrepancy between achievement and intelligence.
- Hawaii DOE’s pre-2009 regulations required a 1.5 standard deviation severe discrepancy; after 2004 IDEA amendments, RTI-based approaches were permissible, but Hawaii did not conform its rules until 2009.
- The Hearing Officer and district court upheld Courtney’s ineligibility under the then-existing Hawaii rule requiring a severe discrepancy, despite expert evidence of dyslexia.
- Courtney’s mother obtained a neuropsychological evaluation showing dyslexia and recommended remediation; subsequent tutoring and placement attempts occurred, including private dyslexia tutoring beginning in January 2007 and a private school placement at Assets School.
- The court reverses the district court, holding Hawaii DOE violated IDEA by mandating exclusive reliance on the severe discrepancy model and remands for eligibility determination under conforming regulations and for related relief, including reimbursement considerations.
- The opinion also discusses the district court’s handling of reimbursement and remands for district court to determine appropriateness of private services purchased by Courtney’s family.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hawaii DOE’s exclusive reliance on the severe discrepancy model violated IDEA | Courtney G. argues Hawaii DOE violated IDEA by requiring a severe discrepancy as the sole basis for eligibility. | Hawaii DOE contends its framework, though traditional, was permissible and compliant with federal regulations at the time. | Yes, it violated IDEA by mandating exclusive reliance on the severe discrepancy model. |
| Whether Courtney’s ineligibility determination was proper under conforming regulations or required remand | Courtney argues the improper framework tainted the eligibility decision and requires remand for a proper determination under conforming rules. | DOE contends the record supports the decision regardless of the pre-2009 framework. | Remand to district court to determine eligibility under conforming regulations and appropriate evidence. |
| Whether Courtney's private school tuition and tutoring are reimbursable given the ultimate eligibility question | Parents seek reimbursement for Assets School tuition and private tutoring as a remedy for erroneous ineligibility. | Remand appropriate to determine whether private services were appropriate and eligible for reimbursement if Courtney is found eligible. | Remand to determine appropriateness of private education and reimbursement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Forest Grove School Dist. v. T.A., 531 U.S. 715 (U.S. 2001) (holding that parents can be reimbursed for private school if district erroneously denies eligibility)
- Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1985) (establishing IDEA’s core principles and parental rights in FAPE)
- Seattle Sch. Dist., No. 1 v. B.S., 82 F.3d 1493 (9th Cir. 1996) (review of educational policy under IDEA with deference to hearing officers)
- Union Sch. Dist. v. Smith, 15 F.3d 1519 (9th Cir. 1994) (deference to district decisions in special education eligibility)
- Adams v. Oregon, 195 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 1999) (remand to determine the appropriate relief when private services are involved)