South Kingstown School Committ v. S., 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 South Kingstown School Committ v. S., 1st Cir. (2014)

1/28

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1177

SOUTH KI NGSTOWN SCHOOL COMMI TTEE,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ee,

v.

J OANNA S. , as parent of P. J . S. ,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF RHODE I SLAND

[ Hon. Mar y M. Li si , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Thompson, Kayat t a and Bar r on,Ci r cui t J udges.

Chr i st i ne H. Bar r i ngt on, wi t h whom ACCESS! Educat i onConsul t i ng was on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Mary Ann Carr ol l , wi t h whom Br ennan, Recuper o, Casci one,Scungi o & McAl l i st er , LLP was on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

December 9, 2014


2/28

BARRON, Circuit Judge. The I ndi vi dual s wi t h Di sabi l i t i es

Educat i on Act , or I DEA, 20 U. S. C. 1400 et seq. , i s a l andmar k

f eder al st at ut e now t went y- f i ve year s ol d. I t of f er s f eder al f unds

t o st at es t hat agr ee to pr ovi de pr ot ect i ons t o make sur e di sabl ed

chi l dr en r ecei ve a "f r ee appr opr i at e publ i c educat i on. " I d.

1412( 1) . Rhode I sl and, wher e t hi s case ar ose, accept ed I DEA

f undi ng and t hus agr eed t o pr ovi de t hose pr ot ect i ons. See 21- 2- 54

R. I . Code R. 300. 2( a) . And t hat set s the st age f or t hi s appeal .

The appel l ee, Sout h Ki ngst own School Commi t t ee, r uns one

of Rhode I sl and' s publ i c school di st r i ct s. The appel l ant i s t he

mot her of a di sabl ed chi l d t he School Commi t t ee i s r esponsi bl e f or

educat i ng. The mot her cont ends t he School Commi t t ee f ai l ed t o meet

i t s I DEA obl i gat i ons. She f ocuses i n par t i cul ar on t he School

Commi t t ee' s f ai l ur e t o pr ot ect her r i ght t o an eval uat i on t o

det er mi ne her chi l d' s educat i onal needs. See i d. 300. 304,

300. 502.

The out come of t hi s appeal t urns i n par t on what t he

r ecor d shows about how wel l t he School Commi t t ee per f or med an

eval uat i on of t he mother ' s chi l d. But t he out come al so t ur ns on

t he meani ng of a Set t l ement Agreement bet ween t he mot her and t he

School Commi t t ee over whi ch eval uat i ons t he School Commi t t ee woul d

per f orm.

We hol d t he Di st r i ct Cour t r i ght l y concl uded t he

Set t l ement Agr eement r el i eves t he School Commi t t ee of any

- 2-


3/28

obl i gat i on t o per f or m or f und one of t he eval uat i ons t he mot her

seeks. We al so hol d t he Di st r i ct Cour t di d not er r i n concl udi ng

t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent f act ual suppor t f or her ot her eval uat i on

r equest . St i l l , we r emand f or t he Di st r i ct Cour t t o consi der

whet her t he mot her deserves at t or neys' f ees f or her success i n

secur i ng yet a t hi r d eval uat i on, whi ch t he School Commi t t ee di d not

chal l enge i n Di st r i ct Cour t and t hus does not cont est her e.

I.

J oanna S. br i ngs t hi s appeal on behal f of her son, P. J .

- we use onl y i ni t i al s out of r espect f or t hei r pr i vacy. P. J . i s

a di sabl ed st udent . He used t o at t end a publ i c school i n t he Sout h

Ki ngst own publ i c school di st r i ct , whi ch t he Sout h Ki ngst own School

Commi t t ee r uns. P. J . now at t ends, wi t h f undi ng f r om t he School

Commi t t ee, a pr i vat e school i n East Pr ovi dence, Rhode I sl and.

J oanna S. cont ends t he Rhode I sl and st at ut e and

r egul at i ons t hat i mpl ement I DEA r equi r e t he School Commi t t ee t o pay

f or t wo i ndependent eval uat i ons of P. J . The f i r st i s an

"occupat i onal t her apy" eval uat i on, whi ch woul d eval uat e P. J . ' s

mot or ski l l s and sensor y pr ocessi ng abi l i t i es. The second i s a

"psychoeducat i onal " eval uat i on, whi ch woul d eval uat e P. J . ' s

educat i onal pr ogr ess and needs.

Eval uat i ons ar e i nt egr al t o t he way I DEA wor ks. They

det er mi ne whet her a chi l d "qual i f i es as a chi l d wi t h a di sabi l i t y"

and t hus f or I DEA pr ot ect i on. 21- 2- 54 R. I . Code R. 300. 300( a) .

- 3-


4/28

For chi l dr en who do qual i f y, l i ke P. J . , eval uat i ons al so per f or m

anot her i mpor t ant f unct i on. They "assi st i n det er mi ni ng . . .

[ t ] he cont ent of t he chi l d' s" I ndi vi dual i zed Educat i on Pr ogr am, or

I EP. I d. 300. 304( b) ( 1) ( i i ) .

The I EP set s f or t h t he ser vi ces a di sabl ed chi l d wi l l

r ecei ve and t he educat i onal goal s f or t hat chi l d. I d.

300. 320( a) . The I EP t hus gi ves pr act i cal subst ance t o I DEA' s

r i ght t o a f r ee appr opr i at e publ i c educat i on. And f or t hat r eason,

eval uat i ons ar e a key means - - perhaps t he key means - - f or

deci di ng t he cont ent of t he pr ot ect i ons I DEA of f er s.

I n t he f i r st i nst ance, t he school di st r i ct must per f or m

I DEA eval uat i ons. I d. 300. 301, 300. 303, 300. 304. But I DEA al so

pr ovi des f or "i ndependent " eval uat i ons. For t hat t ype of

eval uat i on, t he par ent sel ect s t he eval uat or , i d. 300. 502, and a

school di st r i ct must pay f or t hat eval uat i on. But t hat obl i gat i on

t o pay ki cks i n onl y i f a school di str i ct has f i r st f ai l ed t o

per f or m i t s own eval uat i on wel l enough f or i t t o be deemed

"appr opr i at e. " I d. 300. 502( b) ( 2) , ( 5) . The r i ght t o have a

school di st r i ct pay f or an i ndependent eval uat i on, t her ef or e, i s a

backst op. I t of f er s a par ent a r emedy when a school di st r i ct f ai l s

t o car r y out i t s eval uat i ve r esponsi bi l i t i es pr oper l y.

The di sput e between J oanna S. and t he School Commi t t ee

t hat i s at i ssue i n t hi s appeal does not di r ect l y concer n an

eval uat i on t he School Commi t t ee must per f orm. Or , at l east , J oanna

- 4-


5/28

S. says i t does not . I nst ead, J oanna S. want s us t o gi ve ef f ect t o

a f avor abl e admi ni st r at i ve rul i ng she char act er i zes as havi ng

r equi r ed t he School Commi t t ee t o f und t wo i ndependent eval uat i ons.

The admi ni st r at i ve r ul i ng i s not ent i r el y cl ear , however ,

on t hat poi nt . The par t of t he admi ni st r at i ve r ul i ng t hat concer ns

t he occupat i onal t her apy eval uat i on cl ear l y does r equi r e an

i ndependent eval uat i on. But t he par t t hat addr esses t he

psychoeducat i onal eval uat i on i s more ambi guous. I t coul d be r ead

t o requi r e the School Commi t t ee t o pay f or an i ndependent

psychoeducat i onal eval uat i on or t o r equi r e t he School Commi t t ee t o

per f or m t he psychoeducat i onal eval uat i on i t sel f . As we wi l l

expl ai n, we need not r esol ve t he ambi gui t y.

To see why, t hough, we need t o provi de some f ur t her

det ai l s about t he hi st or y t hat under l i es t he di sput e bet ween J oanna

S. and t he School Commi t t ee over t hese eval uat i ons. J oanna S.

f i r st made t he eval uat i on r equest t hat gave ri se t o thi s appeal i n

Febr uar y of 2012. That was when she brought what i s known as a

"due pr ocess compl ai nt . " I DEA and t he Rhode I sl and l aws

i mpl ement i ng I DEA al l ow bot h school di st r i ct s and par ent s t o f i l e

a "due pr ocess compl ai nt . " I d. 300. 507( a) ( 1) . Such a compl ai nt

set s i n mot i on a stat e admi ni st r at i ve pr ocess f or adj udi cat i ng a

di sput e over t he "i dent i f i cat i on, eval uat i on, or educat i onal

pl acement of [ a di sabl ed] chi l d or t he pr ovi si on of [ f r ee

- 5-


6/28

appr opr i at e publ i c educat i on] t o t he chi l d. " I d. 300. 503( a) ; see

al so i d. 300. 507( a) .

I n her due pr ocess compl ai nt , J oanna S. sought addi t i onal

educat i onal ser vi ces f or P. J . f r om t he School Commi t t ee. These

i ncl uded a pr i vat e school pl acement . She al so sought ei ght new

eval uat i ons of P. J .

Bef ore any admi ni st r at i ve pr oceedi ng began, however , t he

School Commi t t ee agr eed t o a set t l ement wi t h J oanna S. That

set t l ement r esol ved J oanna S. ' s due pr ocess compl ai nt . I n t he

Set t l ement Agr eement , t he School Commi t t ee pr omi sed t o pay f or P. J .

t o at t end t he Wol f School , a pr i vat e school . The School Commi t t ee

al so agr eed t o per f or m f our eval uat i ons of P. J . bef or e he began at

t he Wol f School . The f our eval uat i ons ar e l i st ed i n t he Set t l ement

Agr eement as: "educat i onal , cogni t i ve, speech and l anguage[ , ] and

occupat i onal t her apy. " I n r et ur n, J oanna S. r el i nqui shed her

r equest f or t he ot her eval uat i ons she had demanded i n her

compl ai nt . As we wi l l see, however , t her e i s a di sput e about j ust

how much she act ual l y gave up.

Fol l owi ng t he set t l ement , i n l at e Apr i l of 2012, t he

School Commi t t ee per f ormed t he f our eval uat i ons of P. J . t he School

Commi t t ee had agr eed t o under t ake. P. J . t hen enr ol l ed i n t he Wol f

School i n September of 2012. On Oct ober 9, 2012, however , at a

meet i ng wi t h P. J . ' s t eacher s and r epr esent at i ves of t he School

Commi t t ee, J oanna S. demanded t en addi t i onal eval uat i ons of P. J .

- 6-


7/28

These newl y r equest ed eval uat i ons i ncl uded i ndependent ver si ons of

each of t he f our eval uat i ons t he School Commi t t ee had per f ormed i n

Apr i l of 2012. J oanna S. r ei t er at ed t hi s demand f or t en addi t i onal

eval uat i ons i n a l et t er t o t he School Commi t t ee dated Oct ober 22,

2012.

The School Commi t t ee deci ded not t o compl y wi t h J oanna

S. ' s demands f or more eval uat i ons. The School Commi t t ee i nst ead

chose t o f i l e a "due pr ocess compl ai nt " of i t s own. See i d.

300. 502( b) ( 2) ( i ) . The School Commi t t ee f i l ed t hat due pr ocess

compl ai nt on Oct ober 30, 2012. 1 I n t he compl ai nt , t he School

1 A school di st r i ct has f i f t een days t o r espond t o a par ent ' sdemand f or an i ndependent eval uat i on. 21- 2- 54 R. I . Code R. 300. 502( b) ( 2) . Wi t hi n t hat t i me, t he school di st r i ct must ei t heragr ee t o pr ovi de t he i ndependent eval uat i on or " [ f ] i l e a duepr ocess compl ai nt t o r equest a hear i ng t o show t hat i t s eval uat i oni s appr opr i at e. " I d. 300. 502( b) ( 2) . J oanna S. cont ends t heSchool Commi t t ee f ai l ed t o f i l e t hi s due pr ocess compl ai nt on t i me.She says t he School Commi t t ee r ef used t o respond t o her or al demand

f or i ndependent eval uat i ons and i nst ead i nsi st ed she demand t hemi nwr i t i ng. J oanna S. r el i es on r egul at or y gui dance she says showsschool di st r i ct s may not r equi r e par ent s t o pr ovi de wr i t t en not i ceof t hei r demand f or an i ndependent eval uat i on under a f eder alr egul at i on t hen codi f i ed at 34 C. F. R. 300. 503( b) , whi ch amat er i al l y i dent i cal Rhode I sl and r egul at i on t hat i s codi f i ed at21- 2- 54 R. I . Code R. 300. 502( b) goes on t o i mpl ement as a mat t erof Rhode I sl and l aw. See Let t er t o I mber , Of f i ce of Speci al Educ.Pr ogr ams ( Aug. 18, 1992) ; Let t er t o Thor ne, Of f i ce of Speci al Educ.Progr ams ( Feb. 5, 1990) . I n consequence, J oanna S. argues t heSchool Commi t t ee f i l ed i t s due pr ocess compl ai nt si x days af t er t heexpi r at i on of t he r egul at i on' s f i f t een- day per i od f or such a

f i l i ng, as she cal cul at es t hat per i od f r om t he t i me she made heror al r equest r at her t han f r om t he t i me she made her wr i t t enr equest . 21- 2- 54 R. I . Code R. 300. 502( b) ( 2) . But even i f t hecl ock st ar t ed when J oanna S. says i t di d, t he pr ocedur al deadl i neat i ssue i s not al ways a har d and f ast one. Under Rhode I sl and' sr egul at i ons, a par ent may not r ecei ve subst ant i ve rel i ef based ona pr ocedur al vi ol at i on by a school di st r i ct unl ess t he vi ol at i on

- 7-


8/28

Commi t t ee argued t he eval uat i ons i t had per f ormed were "appr opr i at e

and t hat no f ur t her eval uat i ons [ wer e] needed at [ t hat ] t i me. "

I n t he admi ni st r at i ve pr oceedi ng t hat f ol l owed, t he

Hear i ng Of f i cer appoi nt ed by t he St at e of Rhode I sl and r ul ed

agai nst t he School Commi t t ee. The Hear i ng Of f i cer r ul ed some of

t he School Commi t t ee' s eval uat i ons of P. J . i n Apr i l had not been

"appr opr i at e. " The Hear i ng Of f i cer t hus or der ed t he School

Commi t t ee t o pay f or one of t he t wo eval uat i ons at i ssue i n t hi s

appeal ( t he occupat i onal t her apy eval uat i on) , and t o pay f or , or

perhaps i nst ead t o per f orm, t he other ( t he psychoeducat i onal

eval uat i on) .

The School Commi t t ee r esponded wi t h a sui t i n f eder al

Di st r i ct Cour t i n Rhode I sl and. The School Commi t t ee' s sui t r est ed

on a pr ovi si on of I DEA t hat al l ows " any par t y aggr i eved by t he

f i ndi ngs and deci si on" of an I DEA hear i ng of f i cer t o "bri ng a ci vi l

acti on . . . i n a di st r i ct cour t of t he Uni t ed St at es. " 20 U. S. C.

"[ i ] mpeded t he chi l d' s r i ght " t o a f r ee and appr opr i at e publ i ceducat i on, "[ s] i gni f i cant l y i mpai r ed t he par ent ' s oppor t uni t y t opar t i ci pat e i n t he deci si onmaki ng pr ocess r egar di ng" t he chi l d' seducat i on, or " [ c] aused a depr i vat i on of educat i onal benef i t . " I d. 300. 513( a) ( 2) . Despi t e concedi ng t he appl i cabi l i t y of t hat r ul e,J oanna S. does not expl ai n how t he ver y sl i ght del ay i nvol ved here- - si x days at t he most - - had t he r equi r ed pr ej udi ci al ef f ect . I nf act , much of t he r esponsi bi l i t y f or t he del ay seems t o l i e wi t h

J oanna S. : t he School Commi t t ee sent her a l et t er r equest i ngcl ar i f i cat i on t he day af t er her pur por t ed or al demand, and J oannaS. di d not r espond unt i l t wel ve days l at er . The School Commi t t eet hen f i l ed i t s due pr ocess compl ai nt j ust a f ew days af t er i tr ecei ved J oanna S. ' s r esponsi ve l et t er . We t hus concl ude t headmi ni st r at i ve deci si on was proper l y deci ded on "subst ant i vegr ounds. " I d. 300. 513( a) .

- 8-


9/28

1415( i ) ( 2) ( A) ; D. R. ex r el . M. R. v. E. Br unswi ck Bd. of Educ. ,

109 F. 3d 896, 898 ( 3d Ci r . 1997) ( ci t i ng t he pr i or ver si on of

1415( i ) ( 2) ( A) , t hen codi f i ed at 20 U. S. C. 1415( e) ( 1996) ) .

Act i ng on cross mot i ons f or summary j udgment , t he

Di st r i ct Cour t f ound t he admi ni st r at i ve recor d di d not suppor t t he

Hear i ng Of f i cer ' s or der t hat t he School Commi t t ee f und an

i ndependent occupat i onal t her apy eval uat i on of P. J . The Di st r i ct

Cour t al so f ound t he Set t l ement Agr eement r el eased any cl ai m t o a

psychoeducat i onal eval uat i on of P. J . t hat J oanna S. mi ght have had.

The Di st r i ct Cour t t hus grant ed t he School Commi t t ee' s mot i on f or

summary j udgment and deni ed J oanna S. ' s. J oanna S. now appeal s t he

Di str i ct Cour t ' s deci si on.

II.

The t wo eval uat i ons at i ssue - - occupat i onal t herapy and

psychoeducat i onal - - pr esent di st i nct i ssues. Li ke t he Di st r i ct

Cour t and t he Hear i ng Of f i cer , we consi der t hem separ at el y,

al t hough our st andar d of r evi ew i s t he same f or bot h.

We deci de l egal i ssues de novo, and we r evi ew t he

Di st r i ct Cour t ' s f actual f i ndi ngs onl y f or cl ear er r or . Gonzl ez

v. P. R. Dep' t of Educ. , 254 F. 3d 350, 352 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) . For

mi xed quest i ons of l aw and f act , we appl y a "degr ee- of - def er ence

cont i nuum" dependi ng on " t o what ext ent a part i cul ar det er mi nat i on

i s l aw or f act domi nat ed. " Lessar d v. Wi l t on- Lyndebor ough Coop.

Sch. Di st . , 518 F. 3d 18, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . Unl i ke t he way we

- 9-


10/28

r evi ew agency deci si ons under t he Admi ni st r at i ve Procedur e Act ,

see, e. g. , Puer t o Ri co v. Uni t ed St at es, 490 F. 3d 50, 60- 61 ( 1st

Ci r . 2007) , we def er t o t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s f act ual f i ndi ngs, not

t o t he st at e- appoi nt ed admi ni st r at i ve of f i cer ' s. Lessar d, 518 F. 3d

at 24.

St i l l , we must ensur e t he Di st r i ct Cour t gave "due

def er ence" t o t hat of f i cer ' s super i or educat i onal exper t i se. I d. ;

Hampt on Sch. Di st . v. Dobr owol ski , 976 F. 2d 48, 52- 53 ( 1st Ci r .

1992) . We have character i zed t he appr opr i ate l evel of r evi ew by

Di st r i ct Cour t s as " i nvol ved over si ght , " a st andar d whi ch "f al l s

somewher e bet ween t he hi ghl y def er ent i al cl ear - er r or s t andard and

t he non- def er ent i al de novo st andar d. " Sebast i an M. v. Ki ng

Phi l l i p Reg' l Sch. Di st . , 685 F. 3d 79, 84 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( quot i ng

D. B. ex r el . El i zabet h B. v. Esposi t o, 675 F. 3d 26, 35- 36 ( 1st Ci r .

2012) ) . Mor eover , we have sai d bef or e t hat , i n cases of t hi s sor t ,

summary j udgment mot i ons are "si mpl y a vehi cl e" f or pr ovi di ng

r evi ew of t he under l yi ng admi ni st r at i ve r ul i ng, and t hat i s t he

case here. 2 See Sebast i an M. , 685 F. 3d at 85.

2 No par t y di sput es t hat t he par t i es' cross- mot i ons f orsummar y j udgement "essent i al l y" asked t he Di st r i ct Cour t t o"conduct [ ] a bench t r i al based on a st i pul at ed r ecor d. " Sebast i anM. , 685 F. 3d at 85 ( quot i ng Oj ai Uni f i ed Sch. Di st . v. J ackson, 4F. 3d 1467, 1472 ( 9t h Ci r . 1993) ) .

- 10-


11/28

III.

We st ar t wi t h t he occupat i onal t her apy eval uat i on. The

Set t l ement Agr eement i dent i f i ed t hi s eval uat i on as one of t he f our

t he School Commi t t ee woul d per f or m. The School Commi t t ee t hen

perf ormed i t . We t hus set t he Agr eement t o one si de and f ocus on

t he onl y poi nt t hat i s i n di sput e about t hi s eval uat i on - - whet her

t he recor d at t he admi ni st r at i ve hear i ng shows t he occupat i onal

t her apy eval uat i on t he School Commi t t ee di d per f or m was

"appr opr i ate" and thus t hat t he School Commi t t ee di d not need t o

pay f or an i ndependent one. 21- 2- 54 R. I . Code R. 300. 502( b) ( 2) .

J oanna S. ar gues t he Apr i l 2012 occupat i onal t herapy

eval uat i on was not " appr opr i at e. " See i d. 300. 304( b) , ( c) . She

cont ends t he School Commi t t ee di d not consi der " i nf ormat i on

pr ovi ded by t he par ent , " i d. 300. 304( b) ( 1) , di d not use "a

var i et y of assessment t ool s and st r at egi es, " i d. , di d not ensur e

t he t est s t hat compr i sed t he eval uat i on wer e admi ni st er ed by

" t r ai ned and knowl edgeabl e per sonnel , " i d. 300. 304( c) ( 1) ( i v) , and

di d not t ai l or t hose component t est s " t o assess speci f i c ar eas of

educat i onal need, " i d. 300. 304( c) ( 2) . She al so cont ends t he

School Commi t t ee di d not ensur e i t s over al l assessment "accur at el y

r ef l ect [ ed] t he chi l d' s apt i t ude or achi evement l evel . . . r at her

t han r ef l ect i ng t he chi l d' s i mpai r ed sensor y . . . ski l l s. " I d.

300. 304( c) ( 3) .

- 11-


12/28

The Hear i ng Of f i cer agreed wi t h J oanna S. t hat t he

occupat i onal t her apy eval uat i on was not "suf f i ci ent l y compr ehensi ve

t o i dent i f y al l of t he St udent ' s needs i n t hi s ar ea. " She f ound

sever al f l aws i n t he School Commi t t ee' s eval uat i on. The Hear i ng

Of f i cer t hus or dered t he School Commi t t ee t o f und t he i ndependent

occupat i onal t her apy eval uat i on J oanna S. now seeks.

I n r ever si ng t he Hear i ng Of f i cer ' s or der , t he Di st r i ct

Cour t r ej ect ed t hr ee key f act ual f i ndi ngs t he Hear i ng Of f i cer had

made. Those t hr ee f i ndi ngs addr essed al l eged pr obl ems wi t h t he

School Commi t t ee' s occupat i onal t her apy eval uat i on. We f i nd

not hi ng i n t he r ecor d t o i ndi cat e t he Di st r i ct Cour t cl ear l y er r ed

i n r ej ect i ng t hose t hr ee f i ndi ngs. See Lessar d, 518 F. 3d at 24.

We al so see not hi ng i n t he r ecor d t o suggest t he Di st r i ct Cour t

er r ed i n r ul i ng t hat , wi t hout t hose t hr ee chal l enged f i ndi ngs, t he

School Commi t t ee' s occupat i onal t her apy eval uat i on of P. J . was

"appr opr i at e. " For t hat r eason, we af f i r m t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s

deci si on.

The f i r st of t he di sputed Hear i ng Of f i cer f i ndi ngs

concer ned whet her t he eval uator consi der ed i nf ormat i on about t he

chi l d t hat t he par ent had pr ovi ded. See 21- 2- 54 R. I . Code R.

300. 304( b) ( 1) . The Hear i ng Of f i cer f ound t he eval uat or f ai l ed t o

pr ovi de such consi der at i on, because t he eval uator was not aware of

J oanna S. ' s concer ns about her son' s sensor y processi ng abi l i t i es.

But t he admi ni st r at i ve r ecor d wel l suppor t s t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s

- 12-


13/28

concl usi on t hat t he eval uat or was awar e of J oanna S. ' s concer ns

about her son' s sensor y pr ocessi ng abi l i t i es. The Di st r i ct Cour t

not ed t he eval uat or t est i f i ed she was t ol d, i n advance of t he

eval uat i on, about J oanna S. ' s sensory pr ocessi ng concer ns, and

t her e was no cont r ar y t est i mony. Mor eover , t he Di st r i ct Cour t

cor r ect l y not ed t he eval uat or ' s r epor t r eci t ed "sensor y pr ocessi ng

concer ns" as a r eason f or t he per f ormance of t he occupat i onal

t her apy eval uat i on.

The r ecor d si mi l ar l y suppor t s t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s

r ej ect i on of t he second of t he Hear i ng Of f i cer ' s di sput ed f i ndi ngs

- - namel y, t he Hear i ng Of f i cer ' s det er mi nat i on t hat P. J . ' s "l ack of

ef f or t " on some of t he t asks under mi ned t he eval uat i on as a whol e.

The Hear i ng Of f i cer r el i ed on t he eval uat or ' s st at ement t hat " t he

r esul t s shoul d be vi ewed wi t h caut i on" because of P. J . ' s l ack of

ef f or t dur i ng t he t est . But t he eval uat or r ai sed t hat concer n wi t h

r espect t o t wo sub- t est s - - handwr i t i ng and dr awi ng geomet r i c

shapes. The eval uat or di d not , as t he Di st r i ct Cour t obser ved,

cal l t he eval uat i on as a whol e i nt o quest i on.

I n addi t i on, t he r ecor d shows t he eval uat or al so

t est i f i ed, wi t hout cont r adi ct i on, t hat a subsequent eval uat i on

per f ormed by t he Wol f School al l ayed any concerns about t he

st udent ' s handwr i t i ng. What ' s mor e, t he educat or s at t he Wol f

School , i ncl udi ng t he Wol f School ' s occupat i onal t her api st ,

t est i f i ed t he School Commi t t ee' s t est s, combi ned wi t h t hei r own

- 13-


14/28

f ormal and i nf ormal assessment s, were adequat e. And, as t he

Di st r i ct Cour t not ed, t he Hear i ng Of f i cer made no adver se

credi bi l i t y f i ndi ng wi t h r espect t o t he Wol f School ' s occupat i onal

t her api st .

We r ecogni ze J oanna S. ar gues t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed i n

r el yi ng on t he Wol f School eval uat i ons. She cont ends t he Wol f

School eval uat i ons wer e i mper mi ssi bl e "suppl ement [ al ] " eval uat i ons.

She ci t es r egul at or y gui dance f r omt he U. S. Depar t ment of Educat i on

t o suppor t her posi t i on. See Let t er t o Gr ay, Of f i ce of Speci al

Educ. Progr ams ( Oct . 5, 1988) .

But t he gui dance addr esses a di f f er ent i ssue. The

gui dance r esponds t o t he concer n t hat a school di st r i ct , when f aced

wi t h a par ent al r equest t o pay f or i ndependent eval uat i ons, wi l l

r esor t t o "suppl ement al " eval uat i ons as a del ayi ng t act i c. The

wor r y i s t hat school di st r i cts wi l l put of f payi ng f or a t est

per f ormed i ndependent l y by addi ng on new t est s t o cor r ect t he

cl ai med f l aws i n t he i ni t i al one t hey per f or med.

But t her e i s no evi dence t hat i s what happened her e. The

r ecor d does not show t he Wol f School per f or med i t s eval uat i ons i n

r esponse t o J oanna S. ' s compl ai nt f or an i ndependent eval uat i on,

l et al one t hat i t per f or med t hem t o del ay payment f or an

i ndependent one. I nst ead, i t appear s f r omt he r ecor d t hat t he Wol f

School per f or med t he eval uat i ons i n t he cour se of educat i ng P. J .

and l ong bef ore J oanna S. r equest ed an i ndependent eval uat i on. The

- 14-


15/28

r ecor d t hus pr ovi des no suppor t f or concl udi ng t hese eval uat i ons

wer e "suppl ement al " i n t he pot ent i al l y pr obl emat i c sense t he

gui dance addr esses. And t he Di st r i ct Cour t di d not hi ng i mpr oper t o

t he ext ent i t t r eat ed t he Wol f School eval uat i ons as i f t hey wer e

part of t he occupat i onal t her apy eval uat i on t he School Commi t t ee

per f or med. The r egul at i ons make cl ear school di st r i ct s may use "a

var i et y of assessment t ool s and st r ategi es" t o make up an

"eval uat i on" ; t hey need not r el y on j ust one t est . 21- 2- 54 R. I .

Code R. 300. 304( b) ( 1) .

Fi nal l y, we concl ude t he r ecor d suppor t s t he Di st r i ct

Cour t ' s r ej ect i on of t he Hear i ng Of f i cer ' s t hi r d di sput ed f i ndi ng:

t hat al t hough t he School Commi t t ee' s eval uat i on f ound P. J . ' s

sensor y pr ocessi ng abi l i t i es " t ypi cal , " t he eval uat i on r epor t never

def i ned t he wor d "t ypi cal . " As t he Di st r i ct Cour t obser ved, t he

eval uat or ' s occupat i onal t her apy repor t does def i ne "Typi cal

Per f ormance. "

The r epor t expl ai ns t hat scor es mar ked as "Typi cal

Per f or mance" "i ndi cat e t ypi cal sensor y pr ocessi ng abi l i t i es. " And

t he r ecor d suppor t s t he concl usi on t hat such an expl anat i on, i n

cont ext , i s meani ngf ul . The r epor t cont r ast s "Typi cal

Per f or mance, " t he hi ghest scor e, wi t h bot h "Pr obabl e Di f f er ence, "

whi ch " i ndi cat e[ s] quest i onabl e ar eas of sensor y pr ocessi ng

abi l i t i es, " and "Def i ni t e Di f f er ence, " whi ch " i ndi cat e[ s] def i ni t e

sensor y pr ocessi ng pr obl ems. " "Typi cal , " t hen, means somet hi ng

- 15-


16/28

qui t e i nt el l i gi bl e: abi l i t i es that , f or t he chi l d' s age, are

nei t her quest i onabl e nor def i ni t el y pr obl emat i c. Cf . Am. Her i t age

Di ct i onar y 1310 ( 2d Col l . Ed. 1991) ( def i ni ng " t ypi cal " t o mean

"[ e] xhi bi t i ng t he t r ai t s or char act er i st i cs pecul i ar t o i t s ki nd,

cl ass, or gr oup; r epr esent at i ve of a whol e gr oup" ) .

Wi t hout t hose r ej ect ed f i ndi ngs, we ar e l ef t onl y wi t h

t he Hear i ng Of f i cer ' s ot her wi se unchal l enged f i ndi ng t hat a

"qual i f i ed, l i censed and exper i enced" eval uat or conduct ed t he

occupat i onal t her apy eval uat i on usi ng "wi del y used st andar di zed

t est [ s] , " whi ch, t he r ecor d goes on t o show, pr oduced r esul t s

P. J . ' s educat or s f ound adequat e ( t oget her wi t h t hei r own

assessment s) t o determi ne hi s occupat i onal t herapy needs. We t hus

af f i r mt he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s or der f i ndi ng t he occupat i onal t her apy

eval uat i on t he School Commi t t ee per f ormed t o have been

"appr opr i at e. "

IV.

That br i ngs us t o t he di sput e over t he psychoeducat i onal

eval uat i on. Thi s eval uat i on, unl i ke t he occupat i onal t her apy

eval uat i on, was not one of t he f our eval uat i ons t he School

Commi t t ee agr eed t o per f ormi n t he Apr i l 2012 Set t l ement Agr eement .

For t hat r eason, t he School Commi t t ee cont ends, and the Di st r i ct

Cour t hel d, t he Set t l ement Agr eement r el i eves t he School Commi t t ee

f r omhavi ng t o per f or mor pay f or any such eval uat i on. That i s so,

t he School Commi t t ee argues, because J oanna S. gave up her r i ght t o

- 16-


17/28

seek eval uat i ons beyond the f our speci f i ed i n that Agr eement when

she si gned i t . We agr ee, but t he r out e t o t hat concl usi on i s a

somewhat wi ndi ng one.

A.

We f i r st have t o consi der our power t o take account of

t he Set t l ement Agr eement at al l . J oanna S. argues we may not . Her

cont ent i on f ocuses on t wo subsect i ons of I DEA t hat set up a

"medi at i on pr ocess" and a "r esol ut i on pr ocess" t o resol ve

di sagr eement s bet ween par ent s and school di st r i ct s. 20 U. S. C.

1415( e) , ( f ) . Cour t s have i nt er pr et ed t hese subsect i ons t o

i ncl ude a gr ant of subj ect - mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on f or f eder al cour t s

t o deci de sui t s t o enf orce set t l ement agr eement s r eached dur i ng

t hose pr ocesses. See, e. g. , El Paso I ndep. Sch. Di st . v. Ri char d

R. ex r el . R. R. , 591 F. 3d 417, 427 ( 5t h Ci r . 2009) ( ci t i ng 20

U. S. C. 1415( f ) ) . J oanna S. not es t hat not hi ng i n t he r ecor d

concl usi vel y shows t he Set t l ement Agr eement r esul t ed f r om t hese

st at ut or y pr ocesses. And so, she ar gues, we cannot r el y on t he

gr ant of j ur i sdi ct i on i n t hose subsect i ons t o consi der t he

Set t l ement Agr eement , whi ch she character i zes as mer el y a st ate- l aw

contract.

But our aut hor i t y t o hear t hi s case does not depend on 20

U. S. C. 1415( e) or ( f ) . Thi s i s not an i ndependent act i on t o

enf or ce an I DEA set t l ement agr eement . Rat her , t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s

aut hor i t y i n t hi s case came f r om a separ at e pr ovi si on,

- 17-


18/28

1415( i ) ( 2) ( A) . That pr ovi si on aut hor i zes a school di st r i ct , when

i t i s t he "par t y aggr i eved, " t o chal l enge an I DEA hear i ng of f i cer

deci si on i n a f eder al di st r i ct cour t . We have appel l at e

j ur i sdi ct i on over t hat same sui t under t he gener al grant of

j ur i sdi ct i on t o t he ci r cui t cour t s t o r evi ew t he deci si ons of

f eder al di st r i ct cour t s. See 28 U. S. C. 1291. And J oanna S. ' s

under l yi ng asser t i on of a f eder al r i ght t o eval uat i ons under I DEA

suppl i es t he " f eder al i ngr edi ent " maki ng t hose st at ut or y gr ant s

const i t ut i onal i n t hi s case. See Mer r el l Dow Phar ms. I nc. v.

Thompson, 478 U. S. 804, 807 ( 1986) ; Osborn v. Bank of Uni t ed

St ates, 22 U. S. ( 9 Wheat . ) 738, 823 ( 1824) .

Nor i s t her e any bar t o our consi der i ng t he Set t l ement

Agr eement i n t he cour se of our r evi ew. Feder al cour t s r egul ar l y

gi ve ef f ect t o st at e- l aw set t l ement agr eement s i n f eder al - quest i on

cases. See, e. g. , Gr eat Cl i ps, I nc. v. Hai r Cut t er y of Gr eat er

Bos. , L. L. C. , 591 F. 3d 32, 35 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( r el yi ng on a st at e-

l aw cont r act set t l i ng a t r ademar k di sput e) ; D. R. ex r el . M. R. v. E.

Br unswi ck Bd. of Educ. , 109 F. 3d 896, 898 ( 3d Ci r . 1997) ( r el yi ng

on a st at e- l aw cont r act set t l i ng an I DEA cl ai m) ; see al so Osbor n,

22 U. S. ( 9 Wheat . ) at 822 ( expl ai ni ng t her e i s no const i t ut i onal

r ul e i n f eder al - quest i on cases t hat "t he j udi ci al power . . .

ext end[ s] . . . t o t hose par t s of cases onl y whi ch pr esent t he

par t i cul ar quest i on i nvol vi ng" f eder al l aw) . And, as I DEA pl ai nl y

per mi t s set t l ement s of di sput es wi t hi n i t s scope, we see no r eason

- 18-


19/28

t o r ead I DEA t o r equi r e a di f f er ent r esul t her e. Cf . Mayhew v.

Bur wel l , __ _ F. 3d __ __ , No. 14- 1300, 2014 WL 6224938, at *3 n. 4

( 1st Ci r . Nov. 17, 2014) ( exer ci si ng j ur i sdi ct i on over

const i t ut i onal ar gument s present ed f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal

f r om an agency deci si on, t o avoi d t he "nonsensi cal " r esul t of

"r equi r [ i ng] a bi f ur cat ed chal l enge" t o admi ni st r at i ve act i on) . 3

B.

That we may consi der t he ef f ect of t he Set t l ement

Agr eement does not mean i t bars J oanna S. ' s r equest r egardi ng t he

psychoeducat i onal eval uat i on. The par t i es, f ol l owi ng t he Di st r i ct

Cour t , f r ame t he i ssue of t he Agr eement ' s ef f ect as one wi t hi n t he

domai n of " r es j udi cata. " But we have pr evi ousl y r emarked t hat

"[ r ] es j udi cat a i s a doubt f ul l abel " t o use i n t he cont ext of a

set t l ement of an admi ni st r at i ve pr oceedi ng. Mar t i nez- Vl ez v. Rey-

3 We need not address t he separ at e i ssue whet her t he Hear i ngOf f i cer i n t he cour se of per f or mi ng her st at ut or y dut i es had t heaut hor i t y t o consi der t he Set t l ement Agr eement as a def ense, aquest i on t hat seems t o have di vi ded l ower cour t s. Compare J . K. v.Counci l Rock Sch. Di st . , 833 F. Supp. 2d 436, 450 ( E. D. Pa. 2011)( no such aut hor i t y) wi t h, e. g. , D. B. A. ex r el . Sner l l i ng v. Speci alSch. Di st . No. 1, No. 10- 1045, 2010 WL 5300946, at *4 ( D. Mi nn.Dec. 20, 2010) ( aut hor i t y under at l east some ci r cumst ances) . Even

i f t he Hear i ng Of f i cer l acked such aut hor i t y, i t woul d not af f ectt he aut hor i t y of a f eder al cour t t o conduct t he r evi ew Congr essaut hor i zed. Cf . Mayhew, 2014 WL 6224938, at *3 n. 4; El gi n v. Dep' tof Tr easury, 132 S. Ct . 2126, 2137 ( 2012) ( expl ai ni ng t hat cour t sr evi ewi ng admi ni st r at i ve deci si ons have j ur i sdi ct i on t o consi dereven i ssues t he admi ni st r at i ve body "pr of essed [ a] l ack ofaut hor i t y" t o consi der ) .

- 19-


20/28

Her nndez, 506 F. 3d 32, 45 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . 4 I n t hi s case as i n

t hat one, however , " t he l abel does not mat t er ; t he quest i on i s t he

scope" of t he Set t l ement Agr eement . I d. To answer t hat quest i on,

we must l ook at t he Agreement mor e cl osel y.

1.

J oanna S. cont ends t he Set t l ement Agreement , by i t s pl ai n

t er ms, appl i es t o her cl ai ms under I DEA onl y " t hr ough t he date of

[ t hat ] Agr eement . " And si nce her r equest f or t he addi t i onal

eval uat i on at i ssue ( t he psychoeducat i onal one) post - dat es t he

Agr eement , J oanna S. cont ends t he set t l ement gi ves t he School

Commi t t ee no def ense agai nst t he Hear i ng Of f i cer ' s order .

But J oanna S. consent ed i n that Agr eement t o onl y f our

eval uat i ons - - and t hus t o t he r el ease of her cl ai ms f or ot her

eval uat i ons, i ncl udi ng even her cl ai ms f or t he addi t i onal f our she

had previ ousl y demanded i n t he due process compl ai nt t he Set t l ement

Agr eement r esol ved. That consent woul d be meani ngl ess i f she coul d

4 Our cases have r ecogni zed and di f f erent i at ed between t wopossi bl e def enses ar i si ng f r om a set t l ement agr eement : "r esj udi cat a" and " r el ease. " See Davi gnon v. Cl emmey, 322 F. 3d 1, 17( 1st Ci r 2003) . The def enses ar e "separ at e and di st i nct , " i d.( quot i ng Not t i nghamPar t ner s v. Tr ans- Lux Cor p. , 925 F. 2d 29, 31- 32( 1st Ci r . 1991) ) , and "r es j udi cat a, " unl i ke "r el ease, " r equi r esent r y of j udgment . See Repper t v. Marvi n Lumber & Cedar Co. , 359F. 3d 53, 56 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . "Whet her and when r es j udi cat a

oper at es i n admi ni st r at i ve pr oceedi ngs i s compl i cat ed; so, t oo, t hequest i on when a set t l ement of admi ni st r at i ve pr oceedi ng[ s] has r esj udi cat a ef f ect . " Mar t i nez- Vl ez, 506 F. 3d at 45 n. 9. As i nMar t i nez- Vl ez, t her e i s no need f or us t o addr ess t hose"compl i cat ed" quest i ons her e, because whet her under r es j udi cata orr el ease, t he ef f ect of t he Set t l ement Agr eement t ur ns on i t sl anguage' s "scope. " I d. at 45.

- 20-


21/28

nonet hel ess t urn ar ound t he next day and demand t he f or egone

eval uat i ons anew. We t hus cannot accept her pr ef er r ed r eadi ng of

t he Agr eement , as we f i nd i t di f f i cul t t o suppose t he par t i es

i nt ended such a meani ngl ess out come of t hei r negot i at i ons. See

AccuSof t Cor p. v. Pal o, 237 F. 3d 31, 40 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( expl ai ni ng

t hat i nt ent of t he par t i es i s one f actor i n i nt er pr et i ng a

set t l ement agr eement ) .

I n i t s br i ef , t he School Commi t t ee t ook t he cat egor i cal

posi t i on t hat t he Agr eement r esol ved J oanna S. ' s demands f or

eval uat i ons at l east t hr ough t he end of t he 2012- 2013 school year .

But t he School Commi t t ee abandoned t hat posi t i on at oral argument .

I t i nst ead f avored a narr ower f ocus on changed ci r cumst ances. We

agr ee wi t h t he School Commi t t ee' s r evi sed approach. The Agreement

i s best r ead t o r el ease any r i ght t o addi t i onal eval uat i ons t hat

J oanna S. may have had, except when her r equest f or one ar i ses f r om

a change i n t he condi t i ons t hat pr evai l ed at t he t i me she si gned

t he Agreement .

Thi s i nt er pr et at i on t r acks t he Agreement ' s t ext . The

Agr eement wai ved "any and al l causes of act i on . . . [ of ] whi ch

[ J oanna S. ] kn[ ew] or shoul d have known" when she si gned t he

Agr eement . Because unf oreseeabl e event s may gi ve r i se t o

unf oreseeabl e gr ounds f or compl ai nt , t he Agr eement may comf or t abl y

be r ead t o pr eserve r equest s pr emi sed on new ci r cumst ances t hat may

ar i se. But al l owi ng f or t hat possi bi l i t y st i l l gi ves cont ent t o

- 21-


22/28

t he Agr eement i n a way J oanna S. ' s proposed r eadi ng woul d not . On

t hi s r eadi ng, J oanna S. st i l l f aces a hur dl e when she makes post -

Agr eement r equest s f or eval uat i ons not among t hose agr eed t o i n t he

set t l ement . Such r equest s, t o sur vi ve t he set t l ement , must r est on

condi t i ons t hat ar ose af t er she ent er ed i nt o t hat Agr eement .

Thi s r eadi ng of t he Agreement al so accor ds wi t h t he

appr oach t he Thi r d Ci r cui t t ook i n const r ui ng a si mi l ar set t l ement

agr eement . See E. Br unswi ck Bd. of Educ. , 109 F. 3d at 900- 01.

Ther e, t he cour t hel d an I DEA set t l ement coul d precl ude a parent

f r om br i ngi ng f ut ur e I DEA cl ai ms - - unl ess, t hat i s, t hose cl ai ms

wer e based on changed ci r cumst ances. That concl usi on r ef l ect s both

t he rol e set t l ement s may pl ay i n r esol vi ng I DEA di sput es and t he

l egi t i mat e concer n wi t h al l owi ng I DEA set t l ement s t o bar gai n away

- - pot ent i al l y f or al l t i me and wi t hout r egar d t o t he change i n

condi t i ons t hat may ar i se i n t he cour se of a chi l d' s devel opment - -

t he st at ut or y r i ght t o a f r ee appr opr i at e publ i c educat i on.

2.

So under st ood, t he ef f ect of t he Agr eement i s cl ear . I t

bar s t he Hear i ng Of f i cer ' s order r egar di ng t he psychoeducat i onal

eval uat i on unl ess t hat or der may be sai d t o r est on condi t i ons t hat

changed si nce t he t i me of set t l ement i n Apr i l of 2012. For r easons

we wi l l expl ai n, t he r ecor d does not r eveal any suf f i ci ent change

i n ci r cumst ances. As a r esul t , t he order cannot over come t he bar

posed by t he Set t l ement Agr eement , whether we character i ze i t i n

- 22-


23/28

t he way J oanna S. does ( as r equi r i ng t he School Commi t t ee t o f und

an i ndependent psychoeducat i onal eval uat i on) or as t he Di st r i ct

Cour t di d ( as r equi r i ng t he School Commi t t ee t o per f or m a

psychoeducat i onal eval uat i on i t sel f ) .

We r each t hi s concl usi on awar e t he Di st r i ct Cour t di d not

f ocus on changed ci r cumst ances, as nei t her part y f r amed t he i ssue

t hat way bel ow. But we may af f i r m t hat cour t ' s summary- j udgment

deci si on on any basi s appar ent f r om t he r ecor d. See CMI Capi t al

Mkt . I nv. , LLC v. Gonzl ez- Tor o, 520 F. 3d 58, 65 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

And not hi ng i n t he Hear i ng Of f i cer ' s deci si on suggest s t he or der

r est s on a new, post - set t l ement devel opment . Rat her , t he Hear i ng

Of f i cer of f er ed onl y pr eApr i l 2012 j ust i f i cat i ons f or her or der .

She expl ai ned that " [ t ] he Parent has been request i ng i ndependent

eval uat i ons f or some t i me, r equest s t hat have been consi der ed, but

wi t h no agr eement t o do t hem, " and she not ed i n part i cul ar "a

di scussi on about obt ai ni ng a psychoneur ol ogi cal eval uat i on

apparent l y, whi ch was rej ect ed i n t he Set t l ement Agr eement . "

Nor does J oanna S. i dent i f y suf f i ci ent changed condi t i ons

i n her br i ef . J oanna S. argues t he order may be support ed because

of P. J . ' s "past and pr esent behavi or pr esent at i ons, " but she does

not i dent i f y any changes i n P. J . ' s behavi or al pr esent at i ons t hat

occur r ed af t er t he set t l ement . J oanna S. al so r ef er s i n her bri ef

t o t he need t o i dent i f y whet her P. J . has dysl exi a, but she cl ai ms

- 23-


24/28

she was al r eady concerned about dysl exi a i n Apr i l of 2012 when she

si gned t he Set t l ement Agreement . 5

At or al ar gument , J oanna S. ' s counsel di d asser t f or t he

f i r st t i me t hat P. J . ' s ext ended absence bef or e he began at t endi ng

t he Wol f School const i t ut ed a changed ci r cumst ance - - as he st ayed

out of school af t er t he set t l ement unt i l t he st ar t of t he next

school year . But J oanna S. ' s counsel di d not expl ai n how P. J . ' s

cont i nued absence f r om school - - t he st ar t of whi ch pr edat ed t he

Set t l ement Agr eement by at l east a mont h - - suppor t s t hat

concl usor y cont ent i on. Nor di d J oanna S. ar gue i n her br i ef t hat

t hi s absence est abl i shed a changed ci r cumst ance. Such a bare

asser t i on of changed condi t i ons, r ai sed f or t he f i r st t i me at or al

ar gument , does not suf f i ce t o war r ant r ever sal of t he Di st r i ct

Cour t ' s j udgment , gi ven J oanna S. ' s f ai l ur e t o i dent i f y - - t o t he

Di st r i ct Cour t or t o us - - any f act s i n t he admi ni st r at i ve r ecor d

showi ng a mater i al change i n condi t i ons.

Thus, l i ke t he Di st r i ct Cour t , but f or a sl i ght l y

di f f er ent r eason, we concl ude t he Set t l ement Agr eement r el i eves t he

School Commi t t ee f r om havi ng t o pay f or , or conduct , t he

5 Those ar gument s were not ones of f ered by t he Hear i ngOf f i cer . The par t i es do not br i ef whet her Secur i t y & Exchange

Commi ssi on v. Chener y Corp. , 318 U. S. 80 ( 1943) , or possi bl ydoct r i nes of wai ver or f or f ei t ur e, woul d pr ecl ude us f r omr ei nst at i ng t he st at e Hear i ng Of f i cer ' s or der on an al t er nat egr ound f r om t he one she gave, and we need not addr ess t hem here.Cf . Chr i st opher S. ex r el . Ri t a S. v. St ani sl aus Cnt y. Of f i ce ofEduc. , 384 F. 3d 1205, 1212 n. 5 ( 9t h Ci r . 2004) ( i nvoki ng Chener yi nt he I DEA cont ext ) .

- 24-


25/28

psychoeducat i onal eval uat i on t he Hear i ng Of f i cer or der ed. The

ext ent t o whi ch condi t i ons must change, as t hey of t en do as

chi l dr en gr ow and devel op, bef or e a r el ease no l onger bar s a

r equest ed eval uat i on i s an i ssue we do not addr ess i n t hi s appeal .

3.

I n an appar ent ef f or t t o avoi d t hi s r esul t , J oanna S.

ar gues t he Hear i ng Of f i cer or der ed t he psychoeducat i onal eval uat i on

"sua spont e, " r at her t han at J oanna S. ' s request . She suggest s

t hi s under st andi ng of t he Hear i ng Of f i cer ' s act i on shoul d pr ot ect

i t f r om bei ng over t ur ned, pr esumabl y because she bel i eves t he

or der ' s sua spont e nat ur e r emoves i t f r om t he scope of t he

set t l ement .

But even i f t he Set t l ement Agreement woul d f or some

r eason not bar a sua spont e or der , not hi ng i n the recor d suggest s

t hi s or der was i n f act i ssued sua spont e. A "sua spont e" order i s

one i ssued " [ w] i t hout pr ompt i ng or suggest i on. " Bl ack' s Law

Di ct i onar y 1650 ( 10t h Ed. 2014) . The Hear i ng Of f i cer di d not

char act er i ze t he or der i n t hat way. Rat her , she based her or der on

J oanna S. ' s past " r equest s" and "concer ns. " Mor eover , t he cont ent

of t he psychoeducat i onal eval uat i on t he Hear i ng Of f i cer or der ed - -

"r eadi ng, wr i t i ng, mat h, sensor y di f f i cul t y, wr i t t en l anguage,

execut i ve f unct i on, behavi or , i ndependent f unct i oni ng, di f f i cul t y

wi t h bal ance and gr oss mot or ski l l s, and assi st i ve t echnol ogy i f

deemed necessar y" - - appear s di r ect l y responsi ve t o t he ki nd of

- 25-


26/28

eval uat i on J oanna S. sought i n t he l et t er t hat gave r i se t o t he

School Commi t t ee' s due pr ocess compl ai nt . 6 I n addi t i on, t he

Hear i ng Of f i cer never ment i oned t he sol e pr ovi si on J oanna S. cl ai ms

aut hor i zed t he Hear i ng Of f i cer t o or der t he psychoeducat i onal

eval uat i on sua spont e: 21- 2- 54 R. I . Code R. 300. 502( d) . 7 We

t her ef or e cannot accept J oanna S. ' s ar gument t hat t he Hear i ng

Of f i cer i nt ended t o or der r el i ef J oanna S. di d not r equest . And,

because we concl ude t he order was not i ssued sua spont e, we need

not addr ess what t he ef f ect of t he Set t l ement Agr eement on a sua

spont e or der woul d have been.

V.

One i ssue r emai ns - - J oanna S. ' s r equest f or at t or neys'

f ees. I DEA pr ovi des t hat "t he cour t , i n i t s di scret i on, may awar d

r easonabl e at t or neys' f ees" t o a pr evai l i ng par t y. 20 U. S. C.

1415( i ) ( 3) ( B) ( i ) . Even t hough we have af f i r med t he Di st r i ct

6 I n her l et t er , J oanna S. had demanded an "achi evementeval uat i on, " a "psychol ogi cal eval uat i on, " a "speech and l anguageeval uat i on, " an "OT [ occupat i onal t her apy] eval uat i on, " a"compr ehensi ve neur opsychol ogi cal eval uat i on, " a "compr ehensi vepsychi at r i c eval uat i on, " a "compr ehensi ve r eadi ng eval uat i on, " a"compr ehensi ve math eval uat i on, " a "compr ehensi ve assi st i vet echnol ogy eval uat i on, " and a "compr ehensi ve PT [ physi cal t her apy]eval uat i on. "

7 That sect i on pr ovi des: "I f a hear i ng of f i cer r equest s an

i ndependent educat i onal eval uat i on as part of a hear i ng on a duepr ocess compl ai nt , t he cost of t he eval uat i on must be at publ i cexpense. " 21- 2- 54 R. I . Code R. 300. 502( d) . I t i s not at al lcl ear t hat t hi s sect i on aut hor i zes a hear i ng of f i cer t o or der aneval uat i on - - by i t s t er ms i t seems t o addr ess onl y cost , notaut hor i t y - - but we need not addr ess t hi s sect i on' s scope her ebecause t he Hear i ng Of f i cer di d not r el y on i t .

- 26-


27/28

Cour t , t he School Commi t t ee l ef t one aspect of t he Hear i ng

Of f i cer ' s deci si on unchal l enged. I n addi t i on t o or der i ng t he

School Commi t t ee t o act wi t h r espect t o an occupat i onal t her apy

eval uat i on and a psychoeducat i onal eval uat i on, t he Hear i ng Of f i cer

al so f ound t he School Commi t t ee' s " educat i onal " eval uat i on was not

appr opr i at e. Because t he School Commi t t ee chose not t o chal l enge

t hat f i ndi ng, J oanna S. i s a pr evai l i ng par t y wi t h r espect t o t hat

one por t i on of her cl ai m and i s thus el i gi bl e f or f ees. See A. R.

ex. r el . R. V. v. N. Y. Ci t y Dep' t of Educ. , 407 F. 3d 65, 75 ( 2d Ci r .

2005) ( "[ A] pl ai nt i f f who r ecei ves [ hear i ng of f i cer ] - or der ed r el i ef

on t he mer i t s i n an I DEA admi ni st r at i ve pr oceedi ng i s a ' pr evai l i ng

part y. ' He or she may t her ef ore be ent i t l ed t o payment of

at t or neys' f ees under I DEA' s f ee- shi f t i ng pr ovi si ons. ") . We r emand

so t he Di st r i ct Cour t may consi der i n t he f i r st i nst ance whet her

and t o what extent at t or neys' f ees shoul d be or der ed.

VI.

As we have expl ai ned, eval uat i ons are cr uci al t o I DEA.

They hel p ensur e chi l dren r ecei ve t he f r ee appr opr i at e publ i c

educat i on Congr ess envi si oned. I t i s t hus not surpri si ng t hat

di sput es ar i se over I DEA eval uat i ons. But i n addi t i on t o pr ovi di ng

an admi ni st r at i ve pr ocess f or addr essi ng such di sput es, Congr ess

al so expr essl y al l owed par t i es t o r esol ve t hemt hr ough set t l ement s.

And when par t i es do so, t he set t l ement s must be gi ven appr opr i at e

ef f ect . For t he r easons gi ven above, we af f i r m t he Di st r i ct

- 27-


28/28

Cour t ' s r ever sal of t he Hear i ng Of f i cer ' s or der s r egar di ng t he

occupat i onal t her apy and psychoeducat i onal eval uat i ons. We al so

r emand f or t he Di st r i ct Cour t t o consi der whet her J oanna S. i s

ent i t l ed t o at t or neys' f ees based on her success i n secur i ng t he

Hear i ng Of f i cer ' s order f or an i ndependent educat i onal eval uat i on.

- 28-

South Kingstown School Committ v. S., 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents