Richardson v. District of Columbia, 273 F. Supp. 3d 94

Background

C.S., born in 2011, received Part C early-intervention services in 2014 after a Strong Start evaluation that included the Battelle Developmental Inventory, Second Edition (BDI-2).
As C.S. approached age three, D.C. Public Schools (Early Stages) conducted a multi-disciplinary initial Part B evaluation in July 2015 (psychological, speech-language, and occupational components).
In July 2015 the Defendant’s Multi-Disciplinary Team concluded C.S. was not eligible for Part B services (no qualifying Autism Spectrum Disorder, Speech/Language Impairment, or Developmental Delay), and Part C services ceased in fall 2015.
Plaintiff requested and received funding for independent evaluations in early 2016; independent clinicians diagnosed expressive language deficit, fine-motor delays, and signs consistent with Global Developmental Delay/Autism.
A reconvened Defendant team in April 2016 found C.S. eligible for Developmental Delay under Part B. Plaintiff challenged the July 2015 ineligibility at a due process hearing; the Hearing Officer upheld the July 2015 decision.
Plaintiff appealed to federal court. The district court reviewed the administrative record, found any procedural deficiency (if it existed) did not demonstrate denial of a FAPE, and granted summary judgment to the District.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the July 2015 evaluation was "comprehensive" under IDEA/regulations	Richardson: the 2015 psychological evaluation was not comprehensive and thus procedurally deficient	D.C.: the 2015 evaluation plus contemporaneous speech and OT reports and the 2014 BDI-2 provided a comprehensive record	Court: Evaluation was functionally comprehensive; no procedural defect based on content requirement
Whether the psychologist’s lack of first‑hand classroom observation/teacher interview violated regs	Richardson: psychologist’s reliance on others’ observations rendered the eval unreliable	D.C.: regs require that observations exist and be reviewed, not that a particular professional perform them	Court: No requirement that the psychologist personally perform classroom observations; team review satisfied the rule
Whether reliance on the 2014 BDI-2 (outdated test) required updated testing before finding ineligibility	Richardson: BDI-2 was stale; developmental changes over a year may have required new testing	D.C.: the team reasonably relied on existing data and other 2015 assessments	Court: It was unclear whether updated testing was required, but even assuming a procedural lapse, plaintiff failed to show the lapse caused denial of a FAPE
Whether any procedural error resulted in denial of a FAPE in 2015	Richardson: procedural defects impeded parental participation and led to wrong eligibility result	D.C.: no prejudice — plaintiff offered no evidence updated testing would have changed the outcome	Court: Plaintiff did not meet burden to show procedural error impeded FAPE or parental participation; ruling for defendant

Key Cases Cited

Kerkam v. McKenzie, 862 F.2d 884 (D.C. Cir.) (party challenging hearing officer bears burden to prove error)
Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir.) (administrative decisions without reasoned findings get little deference)
Leggett v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir.) (IDEA requires identification and individualized education program tailored to student)
Damarcus S. v. District of Columbia, 190 F. Supp. 3d 35 (D.D.C.) (no specific content requirement for psychological evaluation)
S.S. ex rel. Shank v. Howard Rd. Acad., 585 F. Supp. 2d 56 (D.D.C.) (summary judgment on administrative record operates as judgment on the record)
Elzeneiny v. District of Columbia, 125 F. Supp. 3d 18 (D.D.C.) (definition of genuine dispute at summary judgment)
Ehrman v. United States, 429 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D.D.C.) (each party on cross-motions bears burden to show entitlement to judgment)