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

Background

Independent School District No. 283 asked the court to reverse a March 16, 2018 decision by an administrative law judge (ALJ) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The ALJ had ruled for E.M.D.H., a minor represented by her parents, L.H. and S.D.

The Student had a history of anxiety, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, school phobia, and other diagnosed conditions. Although she generally performed well academically when she attended school, her absences increased over time. She stopped attending school during eighth grade and was repeatedly disenrolled during high school because of absences. The District knew about her attendance and mental-health problems but did not refer her for a special-education evaluation until the Parents requested one in April 2017.

The District evaluated the Student in 2017 but concluded that she was not eligible for special education under the categories of autism spectrum disorder, emotional behavioral disorder, or other health disability. The District did not conduct the required systematic classroom observations or a functional behavioral assessment. The Parents obtained outside evaluations and requested a due process hearing.

ALJ Decision and Court Review

The ALJ found that the District failed to conduct an appropriate evaluation, failed to timely identify the Student as a possible child with a disability, and denied her a free appropriate public education (FAPE), meaning the education and related services required by the IDEA. The ALJ determined that the Student was eligible for special education under the emotional behavioral disorder and other health disability categories. The ALJ ordered the District to provide special education and related services through graduation, reimburse specified evaluation costs, pay for past and future private services, and require the Student’s individualized education program (IEP) team to meet quarterly.

Both sides moved for judgment on the administrative record. The court independently reviewed whether the IDEA had been violated while giving the ALJ’s decision due weight. The court concluded that the District’s 2017 evaluation was deficient under Minnesota law because it omitted required observations and a functional behavioral assessment.

The court also held that the Student was eligible for special education under both federal and state standards. Her mental-health conditions directly affected her school attendance, and her prolonged absences prevented her from progressing through the general curriculum even though she performed well academically when present.

Child-Find Ruling

The IDEA requires school districts to identify, locate, and evaluate children who may have disabilities and need special education. The District argued that the Parents’ child-find claim was untimely and that the District had satisfied its obligations.

The court rejected the timeliness argument. It found that the District had not provided the Parents with adequate and complete notice of their procedural safeguards until June 2017. Because the District withheld information required by the IDEA, the court held that the limitations period did not apply to the child-find claim.

On the merits, the court found that the District knew by at least spring 2015 that the Student had stopped attending school because of anxiety. The District’s efforts to communicate with the Parents and mental-health providers gave it reason to identify the Student as a possible child with a disability, but it did not act on that information. The court therefore affirmed the ALJ’s child-find conclusion.

Remedies

The court affirmed reimbursement for the Parents’ independent educational evaluation (IEE), finding that the District’s evaluation was deficient under Minnesota law. It also affirmed reimbursement for Dr. Denise K. Reese’s May 2017 evaluation, concluding that the District’s failure to evaluate the Student earlier caused the Parents to incur that expense. The opinion states that the Parents paid $2,430 for Dr. Reese’s evaluation.

The court ordered reimbursement for past private services provided by Heather Lindstrom, consistent with the ALJ’s decision. It reversed, however, the provision requiring future payments for Lindstrom’s services based on invoices submitted directly to the District. The court found that the record did not support prospective compensatory education in the form of payment for private service providers because the record did not show whether the District could provide the required services going forward.

The court upheld the requirement that the Student’s IEP team meet quarterly, finding that remedy appropriate under the circumstances.

Disposition

The court denied Independent School District No. 283’s motion for judgment on the administrative record. It granted the Defendants’ motion for judgment on the administrative record in part, as modified above. The ALJ’s decision was affirmed except for the provision requiring future payments for Lindstrom’s services.