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

Background

The School District sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s decision under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a federal law governing special education. The earlier proceedings included a District motion for judgment on the administrative record and a parents’ motion for judgment on the record. The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and reinstated the administrative law judge’s award of compensatory education. The District Court later granted in part the defendants’ entry of judgment and requested additional briefing on the scope and amount of the monetary judgment for prospective private services.

The parties’ positions

The parents argued that the administrative law judge ordered private services arranged during the administrative hearing to continue and increase in cooperation with E.M.D.H.’s individualized education plan team. They described their proposed Private Compensatory Education Program as an individually tailored private transition program intended to help E.M.D.H. develop functional skills, access and complete coursework, earn credits, and graduate. They requested $838,689.16 for the proposed program and related components, including interest, plus $75,945.31 for part of their attorney-fee and cost award, including interest.

The District argued that the requested remedies should be substantially reduced. It maintained that the parents were not entitled to a cash payment based on the estimated value of prospective services that the District was not required to provide or that had not been provided. The District also challenged the proposed program’s calculations and design and argued that services provided by a private professional were no longer necessary or appropriate because of other supports and changes to E.M.D.H.’s individualized education plan.

Court’s analysis

The Court stated that the parties had significant differences about the proper scope and amount of the remedy and that E.M.D.H. had suffered because the parties had not collaborated as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Court said the proposed private program appeared inconsistent with the required cooperative process, excessive, and potentially unsupported. It also stated that the District’s position fell short and that the proper remedy was somewhere between the parties’ positions.

The Court noted that the parties appeared to agree that, at a minimum, the parents were entitled to $25,583.19. It also referred to the Eighth Circuit’s statements that certain professional costs would have been unnecessary but for the District’s failure to timely identify and properly evaluate E.M.D.H. and that private tutoring should continue while E.M.D.H. had a credit deficiency caused by the years she spent without a free appropriate public education.

Disposition

Judge Donovan W. Frank denied the defendants’ Motion for Judgment for Private Compensatory Education Program without prejudice to bringing the motion again if mediation failed. The Court directed the parties to contact Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright’s chambers to schedule mediation on the pending matter. The order did not set the final scope or amount of the broader remedy.