Seth B. Ex Rel. Donald B. v. Orleans Parish School Board
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 546
5th Cir.2016Background
- IDEA guarantees a free appropriate public education and, via implementing regs, a right to an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense when parents disagree with a district evaluation.
- OPSB granted the IEE request and offered reimbursement up to $3,000, conditioned on the IEE conforming to Louisiana Bulletin 1508 criteria.
- Seth B. had autism and was identified as a child with a disability; Dr. Patricia Brockman conducted Seth’s IEE and submitted a report in 2012.
- OPSB issued a 31-point list of noncompliance with Bulletin 1508 and invited discussion, but the parents did not respond.
- In December 2012 the parents sent invoices totaling $8,066.50 and formally requested reimbursement; OPSB denied reimbursement in 2013, stating noncompliance and other disputes.
- The district court granted summary judgment for OPSB; this court vacates and remands for a determination under a substantial-compliance standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OPSB waived its right to refuse reimbursement. | OPSB failed to initiate a hearing, delaying and waiving its right. | § 300.502(b)(2)(ii) allows denial if the IEE does not meet criteria and does not require initiation. | OPSB did not waive its right to refuse reimbursement. |
| Whether OPSB acted with no unnecessary delay in challenging the IEE. | Board delayed in demonstrating noncompliance after invoices were submitted. | Delay was not unnecessary given the timing and process. | Board acted without unnecessary delay. |
| Whether the district court properly allocated the burden of persuasion in the appeal. | Appeal should place burden on the board to show noncompliance with criteria. | District court properly placed burden on the appealing party seeking relief. | District court did not err in burden allocation. |
| What standard governs whether Seth’s IEE meets agency criteria. | IEE should be reviewed under “substantial compliance” with Bulletin 1508 to preserve access to reimbursement. | IEE must fully meet Bulletin 1508 criteria; no de minimis compliance. | Remand to apply a substantial-compliance standard and determine reimbursement if met. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (establishes the IDEA's focus on procedural safeguards and substantive content)
- Teague Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Todd L., 999 F.2d 127 (5th Cir. 1993) (relevance to IDEA procedural review standards)
- Adam J. ex rel. S. v. Keller Indep. Sch. Dist., 328 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 2003) (approach to substantial compliance in IDEA context)
- Van Duyn ex rel. Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist. 5J, 502 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2007) (discusses compliance standards in IDEA contexts)