Timothy O. v. Paso Robles Unified School District
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9382
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Luke, a young child displaying early signs of autism, received early intervention from a regional center; when he turned three Paso Robles Unified School District (Paso Robles) was required under IDEA to perform a full initial evaluation before providing special education.
- Paso Robles scheduled an October 2009 initial evaluation but omitted any formal assessment for autism/social-adaptive functioning, instead assessing speech/language and other areas; a district psychologist (Peck) made an informal observation and concluded no autism assessment was needed.
- Tri-Counties (the regional center) later performed a psychological evaluation (Griffin) that provisionally diagnosed Luke with a PDD-NOS (autism spectrum disorder) and warned symptoms could worsen; Paso Robles received the report two days before the December 2009 IEP but did not meaningfully discuss or incorporate it into the IEP.
- The IEP classified Luke with a speech or language impairment and provided limited speech services and minimal preschool placement; over 2009–2011 Luke exhibited worsening behaviors and refusal to speak, and parents obtained outside evaluations and behavioral therapy that produced rapid improvement.
- Parents filed for due process alleging Paso Robles failed to assess Luke in all areas of suspected disability (autism) and thus denied him a FAPE for 2009–2010 and 2010–2011; the ALJ and district court upheld the district, but the Ninth Circuit reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a school must assess a child in all areas of suspected disability (autism) before providing special education | Paso Robles had notice Luke might be autistic (regional center and expert reports); IDEA required assessment for autism and incorporation into the IEP | Paso Robles argues informal observation by its psychologist and lack of a definitive diagnosis meant autism was not a "suspected" disability requiring formal testing | Held: Notice from regional center and Griffin report triggered duty to assess; informal, non-standard observation cannot substitute for IDEA-mandated assessment |
| Whether reliance on Tri-Counties’ Griffin report or Peck’s observation satisfied Paso Robles’ IDEA obligations | Parents: Even if Griffin existed, Paso Robles did not ensure it would be used to meet IDEA requirements or notify parents; Griffin was for regional center eligibility, not IEP planning | District/ALJ: Griffin was "thorough" and district relied on it; Peck’s observation dispelled suspicion of autism | Held: Griffin did not substitute for district’s duty because district did not ensure, consider, or notify parents it was relying on that evaluation; Peck’s informal observation insufficient |
| Whether procedural violations were harmless or denied a FAPE | Parents: Failing to assess autism deprived IEP team of critical information, impaired parental participation, and caused loss of educational opportunity | Paso Robles: Any error was harmless because IEP recommendations would have been the same or Griffin was relied upon | Held: Violation was not harmless — it substantially impaired parental participation and made provision of a FAPE impossible for 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 |
| Remedy/remand | Parents seek reimbursement for private assessments and behavioral services, compensatory services, and incorporation of behavioral therapy into IEP | District maintains its IEP was appropriate and no remedy warranted | Held: Ninth Circuit reversed district court and ALJ, found IDEA violation, and remanded to determine appropriate remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (IDEA’s remedial and procedural background)
- Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (role of courts and standard for deference to educational authorities)
- Pasatiempo by Pasatiempo v. Aizawa, 103 F.3d 796 (parental/informed suspicions can trigger evaluation duty)
- N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary Sch. Dist., 541 F.3d 1202 (outside professional opinion can require autism assessment)
- Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877 (IEP impossible without knowledge child is autistic)
- Doug C. v. Hawaii Dep’t of Educ., 720 F.3d 1038 (procedural violations can deny FAPE if they impair parental participation or cause loss of educational opportunity)
- M.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 842 (parental participation and procedural safeguards under IDEA)
- J.W. ex rel. J.E.W. v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 431 (substantive FAPE standard)
- M.L. v. Federal Way Sch. Dist., 394 F.3d 634 (discussion of procedural error consequences)
- Weissburg v. Lancaster Sch. Dist., 591 F.3d 1255 (classification does not alone entitle plaintiff to relief)