The Honor able Na ncy G. Edmunds, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District * of Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0816n.06 Filed: Nove mber 21, 2007 No. 07-3198 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

P .R. AND B.R., as pare nts and next friend s of a minor, C.R. , P lai nt iffs- App e lla nt s,
v. WOO DM ORE LOC AL SCH OOL DI STRIC T, Defendan t-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE U NI TED STA TES D ISTRIC T C OU RT F OR THE N OR THER

N D ISTRIC T OF OHI O

BEFORE: DA UG HTREY and GILMA N, Circ uit Jud ges; EDM UNDS, District Judge * P ER CURIAM . This appea l is brought by P.R. and B.R. (“Par ents”), who wer e
unsucce ssful in a lawsuit filed on beha lf of their c hild (“the Student”), in whic h they claimed that he wa s a child with a disability within the meaningof the Individuals W ith Disabilit ies Education Act (“I DEA” ), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400, et seq. , a nd that th e y we re e nti tle d to reimburse ment for the c ost of an indepe ndent educ ational eva luation (“I EE”) . The sole issue on appea l is whether the district c ourt err ed as a matter of la

w when it af

firmed a n administrative
a g e nc y de c isi on that Pare nts we re no t e nti tle d to be re imb ur se d f or the c os t of

a pr ivate ly ob ta ine d I EE . B e c a

us e the re wa s n o e rr or , w e AF F I RM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.2

I. Bac kgr ound A. Due P r oc e ss H e ar ing Re que st s a nd A dm inis tr at ive P r oc e e ding s The fa cts are fully

set forth by

the district court in its eligibility and re imbursement decisions. A brie f summary is as follows. Student attended public schools in the Woodmore L ocal School District (“ School District”) f

rom kinderg arte n until his g raduation from high sc hool in J une, 2006. When the Stu de nt w a s h a lf

-w ay thr ou g h h is j un ior

y e ar i n h ig h s c ho ol, Pare nts ma de a wr itt e n r e qu e st t o the Sc ho ol D istri c t to have him te ste d f or a le arn ingdis a

bil ity . Sh or

tly the re a ft e r, in r e sp on se to disciplinary

action ag ainst the Student, Parents reque sted a due proce ss hear ing se eking , among other thing s, that the School District be orde red to pe rfor m the reque sted Student evaluation. Be fore the due pr ocess he aringcould beg in, severa l events occ urre d. The School District completed a

multi-factore d evaluation (“Evaluation”) of the Student and c oncluded that he was not eligible f

or spec ial education services unde r the I DEA. Pare nts, unhappy with that decision, hir e d s ome on e to p e rf

or m an I EE . T he y

a lso ame nd e d th e ir

du e pr oc e ss h e ari ngre qu e st, notifying the School District for the f irst time that they

had obtained a

n I EE and we re se eking reimburse ment for that pr ivately obtained I EE. A due pr ocess he aringwas then he ld before an Impartial He aringOffic er ( “I HO”)
. Despite the Student’s AD D and a llerg y problems, the I HO conc luded that he did not qualify for specia l education services unde r the Othe r He alth I mpairment (“ OHI ”) pr ovisions of the I DEA beca use his educational perfor mance was not adve rsely

aff ecte d. In light of this, the I HO deter mined, Parents we re not e ntitled to be reimbursed f or the c ost of their private ly obtained I EE. Pare nts appea led, and the State L evel Revie w Off icer (“SL RO”) a ffirme d the I HO’s decisions as to elig ibilit y

and re imbursement.Parents also a ppeale d the SL RO’s reve rsal of the I HO’s de cision requiringthe School 1 District to implement a 504 plan. That issue is not rele vant to this appeal a nd thus is not discussed. 3 Parents, unhappy

with the SL RO’s dec ision, filed suit i n the district court unde r the I DEA. B. Di st r ic t C our t D e c isi ons Parents brought suit under the I DEA in the district cour t arguing, inter

alia, that the School District improperly denied the Student spec ial education services a nd improperly

denied the ir re qu e st f or re imb ur se me nt o f t

he c os t of an I EE
. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt iss ue d s e pa

ra te 1 de c isi on s o n th e se iss ue s. 1. IDEA Eligi bili ty De cision On August 28, 2006, the district court ruled on the parties’ cross-motions for summar y jud g me nt. I t g ra

nte d th e Sc ho ol D istri c t’ s mo tio n f ind ingthat th e Di str ic t’ s I DE A e lig ibi lity deter mination was appropr iate. The court thus denied Par ents’ motion on that issue, and furthe r denied a s prematur e both par ties’ motions as to the issue of reimburse ment for the I EE. The pa rties’ primar

y dispute was whe ther the Student wa s elig ible for I DEA spec ial education services unde r the OH Iprovision, and they focuse d on whether

his ADD/ADHD
a dv e rs e ly a ff e c te d h is e du c atio na l pe rf or manc e . B e c a

us e e du c atio na l e xpe rt ise wa s r e qu ir e d to
make that de te rm inatio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt c on c lud e d th at it

wa s r e qu ir e d to g ive “ du e we ig ht” to the I HO’s a

nd the SL RO’s fac tual finding s. Applying that standard of revie w, the district cour

t aff irmed the SL RO’s I DEA e ligibility deter mination. 2. Reim bursem ent De cision4

On J anuar

y 8, 2007, the district court issued a n order deter mining that Pare nts were not
e nti tle d und e r t

he I DE A t o b e re imb ur se d f or the e xpe ns e of

the ir pr ivate ly ob ta ine d I EE . B oth Pare nts and

the Sc ho ol D istri c t r e lie d o n th e fe de ra l r e g ulatio ns imp le me nti ngthe I DE A t o support their contra

ry positions. The district court first reje cted the School District’ s argument that the re g ulations preclude d reimburse ment beca use Pare nts failed to first notify them that they wanted a n I EE. I t then reje cted Par ents’ ar g ument that the re g ulations require d reimburse ment beca use the School District fa iled to initi ate a due proc ess hea

ring . Rather, the district c ourt he ld, the a

pp ro pr iate ne ss o f t

he Sc ho ol D istri c t’ s e va luatio n h a d b e e n te ste d a nd c on fi rm e d at it s
e arl ie r e lig ibi lity

he ari ng . M or e ov e r, be c a us e it h a d c on c lud e d th at th e Stu de nt w a s n ot e lig ibl e fo r s pe c ia l e du c atio n s e rv ic e s, Pare nts we re no t e nti tle d to be re imb ur se d f or the c os t of

the ir privately obtained I EE. Parents appe al only

the re imbursement dec ision. II. Discussion A. Stand ard of Review A district court initially

revie wingan I DEA a dminist rative f inding “ should make an independe nt decision based on a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e but also should g ive ‘due weig ht’ to the deter

minations made at the state a dminist rative pr ocess.” Bd . o f E du c . o f F ay e tte County, Ky. v. L.M. , 478 F.3d 307, 312 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (citations and quotation marks omitted), petition for cert. filed , 76 U.S.L .W. 3199 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2007) (No. 07- 465). “Adistrict court thus revie ws I DEA c ases unde r a modified de novo standard, me aningthat it may set aside administrative finding s in an I DEA c ase only if the evide nce be fore the cour t is more likely

than not to preclude the administrative dec ision from beingjustified based on the a g ency ’s pre sumed educational expertise, a fa ir estimate of the worth of the te stimony , or both.” Id. at 312-1334 C.F .R. § 3 00 .5 07 a dd re sse s p ro c e dure s f

or imp art ia l du e pr oc e ss h e ari ng s. 2 5 (citation and quotation marks omitted). “More weig ht is due to an ag ency ’s deter mination on matters for

which educ ational expertise is releva nt.” Id. at 313 (c itation and quotation marks omitted). On a pp e a l, w e re vie w the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fi nd ing s o f f a c t f or c le ar e rr or , a

nd its conclusions of laware revie wed de novo. Id. Mix ed questions of law and fa ct “a

re r eviewe d de novo, althoug h the pane l should accor d due def ere nce to the state administrative hea ring office r’s de cision.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). B. Statutory and Regulatory F ram ework In this appeal, Pare nts do not contest the district court’s e ligibility deter mination. Moreove r, neither

party contests Pare nts’ rig ht to obtain an I EE. What is at issue is whether the fede ral a nd state re g ulations require reimburse ment to Parents of the c ost of a privately obtained I EE . T he re le va

nt r e g ulatio ns pr ov ide a s f oll ow s: (b) Parent right to evaluation at publi c ex pense. (1) A pa rent ha s the rig ht to an independe nt educational evaluation at public expense if the par ent disag ree s with an e v a l u at i o no b t a i n e d

b y th e p u b l i c a g e n c y. (2) I f a pa

rent re quests an indepe ndent educ ational eva luation at public expense, the public ag ency must, withoutunnece ssary delay , either – (i) Initiate a hea

ringunder § 300.507 to show that 2 its evaluation is appropriate; or (ii) Ensure that an indepe ndent educ ational evaluation is provided at public expense, unless the ag ency demonstrates in a

hear ing unde r § 300.507 that the eva luation obtained by the par ent did not meet ag ency

criter ia.6 (3 ) I f t he pu bli c a g e nc y

ini tiate s a

he ari ngand

the fi na l de c isi on

is that the ag ency ’s eva luation is appropriate , the par ent still has the ri g ht t o a n in de pe nd e nt e du c atio na l e va luatio n b ut n ot at pu bli c expense. 34 C.F .R. § 3 00 .5 02 (b )( 1) -( 3) ; see also Ohio Admin. Code § 3301-51-05(F )(3) -(6)
. C. The Di st r ic t C our t D id N otEr r in D e nyi ng R e im bur se m e nt On a pp e a l, P are nts argue that, b e c a us e the Sc ho ol D istri c t f

a ile d to ini tiate a

du e pr oc e ss he ari nga s r e qu ir e d und e r t he re g ulatio ns , it mu st

re imb ur se the m f

or the c os t of

the ir pr ivate ly obtained I EE. Specific ally , Parents ar g ue that the district cour t erre d (1) by

construingthe rele vant fe dera l and par allel state re g ulations in a manner that excused the School District from ini tiatin ga

du e pr oc e ss h e ari ngwh e re it h a d th e burd e n o f p ro vin gthe a pp ro pr iate ne ss o f i ts Evaluation, and ( 2) by

concludingthat the appr opriatene ss of the School District’s Evaluation ha d b e e n te ste d a

nd c on fi rm e d at a

du e pr oc e ss h e ari ngand

thu s Pa re nts we re no t e nti tle d to
re imb ur se me nt. 1. Di st r ic t C our t P r ope r ly C ons tr ue d t he Re le va ntRe gul at ion s The district cour

t did not err, as a

matter of la

w, when it dete rmined that Pare nts were not entitled to be re imbursed for the cost of their pr ivately obtained I EE. See§ 300.503(b)( 3). Contrary to Parents’ a

rguments here , the district court prope rly construed the fede ral a

nd para llel state re g ulations at issue in a manner that g ave e ffe ct to their purpose
. F ir st, the dis tr ic t c ourt

re nd e re d a

de c isi on that c or re c tly fi t th e un iqu e fa c ts o f t

his c a se to t he re le va nt l aw. Pare nts did

no t no tif y the Sc ho ol D istri c t in

a dv anc e tha

t th e y wa nte d to obtain an I EE. Rather, the y amende d their pendingreque st for a due proce ss hear ing, a sking that the I HO (1) find that the I EE they had alr eady

obtained wa s appropr iate, (2) find that the Student
was e ligible unde r the I DEA a s a child with an Othe r He alth I mpairment, and ( 3) orde r the7

School District to reimburse Pare nts for the c ost of the private ly obtained I EE. Without prior
no tic e of Pare nts ’ d e sir e to o bta in a n I EE , th e Sc ho ol D istri c t w a s n ot a ble be fo re ha

nd to i nit iate a due pr ocess he aringwher e it could show that its Evaluation of the Student was a ppropriate
. Moreove r, as the r ecor d ref lects, this is not a situation where the School District c hose not to ini tiate a du e pr oc e ss h e ari ng . Rathe r, it m a de that r e c omm e nd atio n u po n le arn ingthat Pa

re nts had obtained a

n I EE and we re se ekingreimburse ment of its cost. I t was Pare nts who protested and insisted that these matter s be addr essed in the due proce ss hear ing that they had re quested and that wa s set to beg in within a few da y s. The I HO agree d with the Parents, but adjourne d the schedule d hear ing f

or a f ew da y s out of a sense of fa irness to the School District so that it had time to prepar e for

these ne wly

added issues. The re is no dispute that a due proce ss hear ing w as held, albeit at Par ents’ re quest rathe r than the School District’s. Next, the dist rict cour

t properly reje cted the School District’ s argument and the SL RO’s leg al conc lusion that, pursuant to § 300.502(b)(2) , Parents we re not e ntitled to reimbursement fo r t he I EE be c a

us e the y fa ile d to fi rs t no tif

y the Sc ho ol D istri c t th at th e y dis a g re e d w ithits Evaluation and w anted a

n I EE. This arg

ument has bee n reje cted by sever al Circuit Courts of Appea l. See B d. of Educ. of Murphysboro Cmty. Unit Sch. D ist. No. 186 v. Ill. Stat e Bd. of Educ. , 4 1 F. 3 d

1 1 6 2 , 1 1 6 9 (7 thC i r. 1 9 9 4 ) ( ci t i n g Hudson v. W ilson , 8 28 F .2 d 1 05 9, 10 65 (4 th Cir. 1987), and obser

ving that “par ents ca

n initiate an eva luation before notifying a school district that they

disag ree with the district’s evaluation”); and W arre n G . v . Cu mb e rla nd

Cou nty Sc h. Di st. , 190 F.3d 80, 87 ( 3d Cir. 1999) (obser ving that “[t] o acc ept the [School] District’s
argume nt w ou ld r e nd e r t

he re g ulatio n p ointle ss b e c a us e the ob je c t of pa re nts ’ o bta ini ngthe ir
own eva luation is to determine whethe r g rounds existto challeng e the [appropr iateness of the School] District’s”)
.8

Finally , the district court prope rly reje cted Par ents’ ar g ument that the re g ulations require the Sc ho ol D istri c t to re imb ur se the c os t of the ir I EE be c a us e it f a ile d to ini tiate the du e pr oc e ss hear ing where the appr opriatene ss of its Evaluation was tested a nd confirme d. The district court’s c onstruction of § 300.502(b) (2)( i) and (b) (3) is consistent with the construc tion of § 300.502(b)( 2) in Bo ar

d o f E du c ati on of M

ur ph y sb or o and Hudson . To ac cept Par ents’ ar g ument he re wo uld

re nd e r t he se re g ulatio ns po int le ss. Th e ir ob je c t is to a ff

or d Pa re nts an o pp or

tun ity to challeng e and the School District to defend the appropr iateness of its Evaluation in an impartial hear ing, a nd that was done here . As long as the objec t of the re g ulations is accomplished, there is n o r e a so n to e xalt

fo rm ov e r s ub sta

nc e . T he ir

purp os e is n ot s e rv e d b y

ho ldi ngthat th e re mus t be re imbursement at public expense whe n it is t he par ents rathe r than the public a g ency that ini tiate s th e du e pr oc e ss h e ari ngwh e re the a pp ro pr ia te ne ss o f t

he Sc ho ol D ist

ri c t’ s E va luatio n is challeng ed and c onfirmed. This is espec ially true unde r these f

acts whe re the School District’s
atte mpt to i nit iate a

du e pr oc e ss h e ari ngon

the se ve ry

iss ue s w a s r e

je c te d b e c a

us e of Pare nts ’ objections. Under the I DEA, pa

rents of a child who may

have a disability have the rig ht to obtain an independe nt educational evaluation of the child. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1). The district court proper ly construed the implementing r egulations as stating that, if there is a hear ing where the pa re nt w a s a ff

or de d d ue pr oc e ss a

nd the fi na l de c isi on

“ is t hat th e a g e nc y ’s e va luatio n is appropr iate, the pa

rent still has the rig ht to an independe nt educational evaluation but not at public expense.” § 300.502(b) (3). 2. The App ropriate ness of the School District’ s Evalu ation Has B een Teste d and Con fi rm ed9

Contrary to Parents’ a

rguments otherwise, the appropr iateness of the School District’s Evaluation wa s considere d in the I DEA due proce ss hear ing the y reque sted. Both Par ents and the School District had a f ull and fair oppor

tunity to present e vidence and ar g uments reg arding the School District’s Evaluation, Parents’ private ly obtained I EE, and the a

ppropriate ness of bo th. As a

re su lt, the dis tr ic t c ourt

pr op e rl y c on c lud e d th at Pare nts we re no t e nti tle d to reimburse ment under § 300.502( b)(3)
. Parents’ f irst opportunity

to challeng e the a

ppropriate ness of the School District’s Ev a luatio n p re se nte d it se lf at th e du e pr oc e ss h e ari ngthe y ini tiate d. In f

a c t, t ha t w a s th e purp os e of their I EE. They

disag ree d with the School District’s Evaluation and pa id to have an I EE. T h ey u s edth atI E E , b o thi nth e a dm i n i s tra t i v e p ro ce ed i n gs an d i nth e d i s tri ctco urt , t o ch al l en ge the a pp ro pr iate ne ss o f t

he Sc ho ol D istri c t’ s E va luatio n a nd to d e fe nd the a pp ro pr iate ne ss o f t

he ir privately obtained I EE. The School District did the c onverse . At the two-da

y due proc ess hea

ringbefor e the I HO, numer ous exhi bits were introduc ed and numer ous witnesses testified about the School District’ s Evaluation testing proce ss and
c on c lus ion s. Witn e sse s in c lud e d th e Stu de nt’ s mo the r, the sc ho ol p syc ho log ist , th e athl e tic direc tor, the spec ial educa tion director, the spe cial educ ation teac her, the Student’s guida nce
c ouns e lor and his te a c he rs fo r e c on omi c s/g ov e rnme nt, math, c he mis tr y , a nd En g lis h. Th e re is no evidenc e that the District f ailed to under

take the bur den of de fendingthe appr opriatene ss of both its Evaluation and its eligibility deter mination at the due proc ess hea ring
. Witn e sse s at th at he ari nga lso inc lud e d D r. Ga rn e r, the lic e ns e d c lin ic a l ps y c ho log ist hired by Parents to per form the I EE. Ther e is no evidenc e that Pare nts were denied the opportunity

to fully and fa irly

challeng e the a

ppropriate ness of the School District’s Eva luationIn light of this conc lusion, itis not necessa ry to discuss the School District’s additional 3 argument that reimburse ment of the I EE is improper be cause it was introduced sole ly in the form of an e x pert opinion at the initial due proc ess hea ring , and expert fe es ar e not re cover able unde r the I DEA. 10 and the c orre ctness of its elig ibilit y deter mination by

arg uing that their privately

obtained I EE
was more cre dible and its contrar y elig ibilit y

conclusion fa ctually

supported. Ba sed on evide nce pr esente d at the impartial due proce ss hear ing, how ever , the I HO found that the School District’s Eva luation was more c redible a nd thus more “a

ppropriate ” than the I EE. The SL RO conclude d that the I HO’s f actua l findings we re not c lear ly err oneous. Giving the I HO’s a

nd SL RO’s fac tual finding s “due w eig ht” bec ause e ducational e x pertise wa s
re qu ir e d, the dis tr ic t c ourt c on fi rm e d th e a

pp ro pr iate ne ss o f t

he Sc ho ol D ist

ri c t’ s E va luatio n in its Au g us t 28 , 2 00 6 d e c isi on . T hu s, in t he a dmi nis tr ativ e pr oc e e din g s a nd in t he dis tr ic t c ourt , Pare nts c ha lle ng e d a

nd the Sc ho ol D istri c t su c c e ssf ull y pr ov e d b oth

the a pp ro pr iate ne ss o f i ts Evaluation and its dec ision, based on that Evaluation, that the Student was not eligible f or sp e c ia l e du c atio n s e rv ic e s und e r t he I DE A. Ac c or din g ly , th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t e rr wh e n it held that Pare nts were not entitled to be reimburse d for the c ost of their private ly obtained I EE. Be cause there was a

hear ing where Parents we re a ffor ded due pr ocess a nd the final de cision was that the School District’s Evaluation was appropr iate, “the pare nt stil l has the rig ht to an independe nt educational evaluation but not at public expense.” § 300.502( b)(3)
. 3 III. Conclusion F or the fo re g oin gre a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.