Independent School District No. 283 v. E.M.D.H
- Donovan Frank
- 0:18-cv-00935
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 12
In Independent School District No. 283 v. E.M.D.H., Judge Frank reinstated compensatory education, denied extra money, and awarded Parents $360,945.05 in fees and costs.
E.M.D.H. and her Parents may receive continued private tutoring paid for by the District and reimbursement for documented compensatory services already paid for; the District must provide those services and pay $360,945.05 in attorney fees and costs.
What happened
Independent School District No. 283 v. E.M.D.H. concerns a high-school student’s claim under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that the District failed to identify, evaluate, and serve her beginning in 2015. An administrative law judge ruled largely for E.M.D.H. and her Parents, including awarding compensatory education and reimbursement for certain services.
After an appeal and further proceedings, Parents asked the court to approve an updated private compensatory education program and enter a $753,640 judgment to fund it. The District argued that the request went beyond the prior rulings and that Parents were not entitled to a general cash payment.
Judge Frank granted in part and denied in part Parents’ motion. He reinstated the compensatory education award, required the District to pay for private tutoring while E.M.D.H. has a credit deficiency, allowed reimbursement for documented services Parents already paid for, denied any additional monetary award, and awarded Parents $360,945.05 in attorney fees and costs.
The detailed version
- Independent School District No. 283 v. E.M.D.H · No. 0:18-cv-00935
- Donovan Frank
- May 20, 2022
Background
Independent School District No. 283 sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s decision under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The administrative law judge found that the District failed to identify, evaluate, and serve E.M.D.H. beginning in 2015, denying her a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The decision awarded Parents reimbursement for certain educational services and required an individualized education program with academic and functional goals. It also awarded a private tutoring program as compensatory education, but denied Parents’ request to set aside funding for a possible future residential placement.
In earlier proceedings, the district court affirmed most of the administrative decision but rejected prospective payment for private tutoring. The Eighth Circuit later affirmed in part, reversed in part, and reinstated the award of compensatory education. The appellate court explained that compensatory education is restorative rather than an award of compensatory damages, and that private tutoring could continue only while E.M.D.H. had a credit deficiency caused by the years in which she did not receive a FAPE.
Compensatory Education Program
Parents moved for judgment implementing a proposed private compensatory education program. They requested either a judgment allowing them to obtain and pay for the services or an order requiring the District to provide them directly. Parents asserted that the updated program cost $753,640 and asked that the money be deposited into a trust. The District opposed the request, arguing that the prior rulings required payment for compensatory education services—not a large unrestricted cash award or funding for services beyond the administrative decision.
The court held that the District must provide compensatory education to E.M.D.H. and, as directed by the administrative law judge, pay private providers directly. The court also held that Parents could receive reimbursement for required compensatory services they had already paid for, provided they supplied documentation. The court granted Parents’ motion in part by entering a judgment reinstating the administrative award and continuing private tutoring until E.M.D.H. earns the credits expected of her peers, and only while she has a credit deficiency. The court denied Parents’ request for any additional monetary award. The court also stated that the unappealed denial of funding for a potential future residential placement was not before it and that there had been no determination that E.M.D.H.’s current individualized education program violated the IDEA.
Attorney Fees and Costs
Parents sought attorney fees and costs totaling $592,110.50, later requesting an additional $17,150 for a total of $609,260.50. The District argued that the award should be reduced. Under the IDEA, a court may award reasonable fees and costs to a parent who prevailed, based on reasonable hours and community billing rates without a bonus or multiplier.
The court found that Parents were prevailing parties and that their attorneys’ hourly rates were generally reasonable. It agreed with most of the District’s proposed reductions, including reductions for certain work related to the proposed program and trust, work unrelated to the case, administrative time, and use of a retroactively increased hourly rate. It awarded $125,912.50 for fees and costs incurred while the case was pending before the Supreme Court, $3,625 for post-Supreme Court work, $151,350 for work before the Eighth Circuit appeal, and $75,879.55 previously awarded by the Eighth Circuit. The total award was $360,945.05.
Order
Judge Donovan W. Frank ordered that the Parents’ motion for judgment on the private compensatory education program, attorney fees, and costs was granted in part and denied in part. The parties were also directed to contact the magistrate judge’s chambers to establish a process for Parents to seek prompt reimbursement for services already paid for. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.