T.B. v. Prince George's Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 897 F.3d 566

Background

T.B., a Prince George’s County Public Schools student, experienced declining grades and chronic unexcused absences in middle and high school; he eventually stopped attending school during tenth grade.
T.B.’s father repeatedly requested school testing and special‑education services beginning in 2012; PGCPS initially declined further assessment and did not conduct timely testing.
Parents obtained an Independent Educational Evaluation (Basics) in May 2014 diagnosing ADHD, a learning disorder, and depressive disorder and provided it to PGCPS in August 2014; PGCPS did not test until after parents filed a due‑process complaint in January 2015.
A Maryland ALJ held a 6‑day hearing (21 witnesses, 95 exhibits) and found PGCPS committed a procedural IDEA/Child Find violation by failing to timely evaluate but concluded the violation did not actually deprive T.B. of a FAPE because evidence showed T.B. refused to attend or engage in school.
The district court affirmed the ALJ except it awarded reimbursement for the IEE; the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to PGCPS on the denial‑of‑FAPE/compensatory‑education claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did PGCPS violate IDEA Child Find/evaluation duties by failing to timely evaluate T.B.?	School failed to respond to repeated parental requests and ignored the IEE, so Child Find/evaluation duties were violated.	PGCPS contested some requests but overall argued it acted appropriately; disputed causation of any harm.	Yes — procedural violation: PGCPS failed to timely evaluate.
Did the procedural violation entitle T.B. to compensatory education (i.e., did it actually deprive him of a FAPE)?	The delay harmed T.B.’s educational rights; timely evaluation would have identified disabilities and led to services that could have prevented absences/decline.	Even if a procedural violation occurred, no evidence showed that prompt evaluation or services would have caused T.B. to attend or benefit; harm not shown.	No — court held the procedural violation was harmless because record showed T.B.’s lack of attendance/effort, not lack of school identification, caused the failure to receive FAPE.
Was the Basics IEE sufficient to require immediate remedial relief or reimbursement?	Basics IEE supported eligibility and relief (reimbursement requested).	PGCPS questioned Basics’ reliability and authorship; ALJ found deficiencies.	IEE reimbursement was ultimately awarded by district court on appeal, but ALJ had rejected it; this appeal affirmed denial of compensatory education only.
Standard of review and deference to ALJ findings	Plaintiffs argued for reversal of ALJ factual conclusions.	PGCPS urged deference to ALJ’s credibility and factual findings.	Appellate court applied modified de novo review but deferred to ALJ factual findings; affirmed ALJ credibility determinations and conclusions.

Key Cases Cited

DiBuo ex rel. DiBuo v. Bd. of Educ. of Worcester Cty., 309 F.3d 184 (4th Cir. 2002) (procedural IDEA violation actionable only if it affected the student’s substantive rights)
M.M. ex rel. D.M. v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cty., 303 F.3d 523 (4th Cir. 2002) (procedural violation must cause loss of educational opportunity; ALJ findings entitled to deference)
Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE‑1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (Sup. Ct. 2017) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress in light of the child’s circumstances)
Leggett v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (procedural violations are actionable only if they affected substantive rights)