Independent School District No. 283 v. E.M.D.H

Background

Independent School District No. 283 sought judicial review of a March 16, 2018 decision by an administrative law judge in a dispute under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). E.M.D.H., a minor represented by her parents and next friends, L.H. and S.D., had filed an administrative due process complaint asserting that she had been denied a free and appropriate public education because she was not properly identified as having a disability.

After a seven-day administrative hearing, the administrative law judge ordered the District to immediately change E.M.D.H.’s educational placement and provide special-education and related services, at public expense, until her graduation. The District then filed this federal action seeking review and reversal of that decision.

Motion to Supplement the Record

The District moved to add two declarations to the administrative record. One declaration, from special-education teacher Carey Hermanson, described E.M.D.H.’s meetings with Hermanson from April through July 2018 and stated Hermanson’s opinion that E.M.D.H. did not need special education. The other, from Supervisor of Student Services Deanna Lawrence, summarized E.M.D.H.’s data from the District’s web-based PLATO learning tool and concluded that she had been working successfully on a self-directed basis.

The District argued that the declarations were relevant to E.M.D.H.’s eligibility for special education and, alternatively, to the appropriate educational placement. E.M.D.H. and her parents argued that the District had not shown the required justification and that the declarations were irrelevant, unreliable, and repetitive.

Court’s Analysis

Under the IDEA, a reviewing court receives the administrative record, may hear additional evidence at a party’s request, and decides what relief is appropriate based on the evidence. The court explained, however, that Eighth Circuit precedent requires a party seeking to add evidence to provide a solid justification. Deciding an appeal on the record created before the administrative agency is the usual practice.

The court emphasized that an individualized education program should be evaluated based on what was objectively reasonable when it was created, rather than with hindsight. It also relied on precedent affirming denial of supplemental evidence concerning a student’s progress and status after the administrative hearing.

Disposition

The court held that the District failed to establish a solid justification for supplementing the record and had not overcome the strong presumption that the appeal should be decided on the existing administrative record. The court therefore denied the District’s Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record. The opinion did not decide the District’s request to reverse the administrative law judge’s underlying decision.