2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

11-2-2009 

# P P v . W C hes t e r Are a S ch

P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2874

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" P P v . W C he s t e r Ar e a S ch" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 183. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/183P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N os . 08- 2874 and 08- 2940

_____________ P .P ., A M in o r b ya n d th ro u g h h is P a re n ts ,

M ich a e l P . an d R ita P .; M IC H A E L P .; R IT A P ., A d u lts In d iv id u a llya n d o n th e ir o w n b e h a lf A ppel l ant s i n 08- 2874

v. W ES T CHE S TE R AREA S CHOOL DI S TRI CT A ppel l anti n 08- 2940

A p p ea ls from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 04338) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames T. G i l es

A r gued J ul y14, 2009 B efore: R E N D E L L F U E N T E S and R O T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: N ovember2, 2009)2 D e n n is C . M c A n d re w s , E s q . [ ARGUE D] G abr i el l e C

. Ser eni , E s q. M cA ndr ew s L aw O ffi ces 30 C as s attA venue B erw yn, PA 19312 C ouns el f orAppel l ant

s/ C r os s -Appel l ees J e n n if e r D o n a ld s o n , E s q . [ ARGUE D] S we e t , S t e v e n s , Ka t z & W i l l i a ms 331 E as tB ut l erA venue P. O

. B ox 5069 N ew B r i t ai n, PA 18901 C ouns el f orAppel l ee/

C r os s -Appel l ant

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. T h e p la in tif

f s in th is s p e c ia l e d u c a tio n c a s e , P a tr ic k P ., a m i norchi l d, and hi s par ent s, R i t a and M i chae l P. , appea l t he D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t to th e d e f e n d a n t, t he W es tC hes t erA r ea School D i s t r i ct( “D i s t r i ct ”)

. T he p lain tiff s m a d e c laim s u n d e r th e In d iv id u a ls w ith D isa b ili ties in E d u cat i on A ct( “I D E A ”) , § 504 of the R ehabi l i t at i on A ctof 1973, and 42 U

. S. C

. § 1983, al l egi ng t hatthe D i s t r i ctdeni ed Pat r i ck a f

r ee a nd appr opr i at e publ i c educ at i on (“FA PE ”) and3 v iolated th e ID E A ’s c h il d -find o b li g ati o n s. T h e D istri ct C o u rt gr a n t e d s u mma r yj u d g me n tt o th e Di s t r i c ta n d a p p l i e d the I D E A ’ s t wo- y e a rs t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s , whi c h t o o k e f f e c ton Ju ly1 , 2 0 0 5 , to the ID E A claim s. Itap p li ed P en n sy lvan ia’s t w o- y earper s onal i nj urys t atut e of l i m i t at i ons t o the § 504 claim s. T h e D istri ct c ro ss-ap p ea ls, arg u ing that the ID E A ’s sta tu te o f lim itatio n s s h o u ld a p p lyto th e § 5 0 4 c laim s. W e w ill aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s u m m aryj udgm entt o the D i s t r i ct , butw i l l not r eac h t he ID E A s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i s s ue. W e di s agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of Penns y l vani a’ s per s onal i nj urys t atut e of l i m i t at i ons t o t he p lain tiff s’ § 5 0 4 c laim s, a n d h o ld th a t th e f e d e ra l ID E A sta tu te o f lim ita tio n s a p p lie s to th o s e c la im s .

I . Backg r ound A. Th e I DEA and the R ehabi l i t at i on A ct T he I D E A r equi r es thati ns t i tut i ons r eceiv ing f eder al e d u c a tio n f

u n d in g p ro v id e a f

re e a n d a p p ro p ria te p u b lic e d u c a t i o n ( “ F APE” ) t o d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n . 2 0 U. S

. C. § 1412( a)(1 ). A s chool di s t r i ctpr ovi des a FA PE bydes i gni ng and i m pl ement i ng an i ndi vi dual i zed i ns t ru cti onal pr ogr am set forth i n an Indi vidual i zed E du cat i on P l an (“I E P ”), w hich “m ust be r eas onabl ycal cul at ed t o enabl e the chi l d t o r ece i ve m ea n in g fu l edu ca ti o n al be n ef it s in li g h t of

the s tud en t’ s i nt el l ectual pot ent i al

. ” Shor e Reg’ l High Sch. B d. of E duc. v. P

. S. , 381 F. 3d 194, 198 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( ci t at i ons and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. T he s chool di s t r i ctm us tconductan eval u ati on of the s tudent ’ s needs , as s es s i ng al l ar eas of s us pect ed di s abi l i t y , befor e pr ovi di ng s peci al e d ucat i on and4 re la te d s e rv ic e s to th e c h ild . 2 0 U .S .C . § 1 4 1 4 (b ). T h e ID E A a lso re q u ire s th a t a s tate h a v e a sy ste m in p lac e to id e n tify , loc a te, a n d e v a lu a te a ll ch ild re n in th e sta te w ho have di s abi l i t i es and nee d s peci al educa t i on and r el at ed serv ices. 2 0 U

. S

. C

. § 1 4 1 2 (a)(3); 34 C

. F

. R

. § 3 0 0

. 1 1 1 (a). Penns y l vani a codi fi es i t s “chi l d fi nd” dut i es at 22 Pa. C ode. §§ 1 4 .1 2 1 -1 4 .1 2 5

. Sect i on 504 of the R ehabi li t at i on A ct , 29 U

. S. C

. § 794, p r oh i b i t s d i s c r i mi n a t i o n o n th e b a s i s o f d i s a b i l i t yb yp r o g r a ms t hat rec ei ve fe der al funds

. U nder§ 504, r eci pi ent s of fe der al funds m us t“pr ovi de a f

r ee appr opr i at e publ i c educ at i on t o eac h q u ali fied h a n d icap p ed p erso n w h o is i n the re cipien t’ s juri sd ict ion , reg ard less o f th e n ature o r sev erityo f th e p erso n ’s handi cap. ” 34 C

. F. R

. § 104. 33( a)

. T he cl ai m s i n t hi s cas e made un der § 50 4 are paral l el t o the I D E A cl ai m s. In D e c e m b e r o f

2 0 0 4 , C o n g re ss p a ss e d a m e n d m e n ts to t he I D E A , w hi ch had a n eff ect i ve dat e o f Ju ly 1, 2005. T he pr evi ous ver s i on of the I D E A di d nothave a stat ut e of l i mi t a t i o n s . T h e a me n d me n t s , wh i c h we wi l l r e f e rt o a s “ I DE A20 04 , ” i ncluded an ex pli ci ttw o-y ear s t atute of l i m i t at i on s: A parentor ag encyshal l requestan im part i al du e process hear i ng w ithi n 2 y ear s of the dat e the par entoragenc y knew ors houl d have know n aboutt he al l eged a ct i on that form s t he bas i s of the compl ai nt , or , i f the St at e has an expl i ci tt i m e l im it at i on forr eques t i ng s uch a he ar i ng undert hi s s ubch ap t er , i n s uch t i m e as the St at e l aw al l ow s.5 20 U

. S. C

. § 1415( f) ( 3) ( C )

. Penns y l vani a d o es nothave a s epar at e expl i ci t t i m e l i m i t at i on for t hes e t ypes of cl ai m s . Pr i or t o I D E A

- 2004, w e had hel d t hat t her e w as no fede r al s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons forcompensa t oryeduca t i on cl ai m s , i n R i dgew ood Bo a r d o f Ed u c a t i on v . N. E. , 1 7 2 F

. 3 d 2 3 8 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 9 ). In B e r n a r d s v i l l e B o a r d

o f E d u c a t i o n v . J

. H. , 4 2 F

. 3 d 1 4 9 (3d C ir

. 1994) , w e hel d t hatt her e w as a one- t o tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i on s for tuit i on rei m bu rs em ent cl ai m s. I D E A

- 2004 i ncl udes t w o exce pt i ons to the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons per i od. T he tw o- y earper i od does notappl yw hen the par entw as pr event ed fr om reques t i ng a due pr oces s hear i ng b ec au se o f e ith er: ( i ) s peci fi c mi s r epr es ent at i ons bythe local educa t i onal a g e n c yth a t it h a d re so lv e d th e p ro b lem f o rm in g th e b a sis of the compl ai nt ; or ( i i ) t h e l ocal educa t i onal agenc y ’ s w i t hhol di ng of in f o rm a tio n f

ro m th e p a re n t th a t w a s re q u ire d u n d e r th is su b c h a p ter to b e p ro v id e d to th e p a re n t. 2 0 U .S .C . § 1 4 1 5 (f

)( 3 )( D ). B . F a cts T he pl ai nt i ffs

— Ri t a a n dM i chae l P. and thei rs on Pat r i ck, w ho w as 11 y ear s ol d at t he t i m e the compl ai ntw as fi l ed— l i ve w i t hi n t he boundar i es of the D i s t r i ct , butPatr i ck has never at t end ed p ub l i c sch o ol. D uri ng the 2 00 1-200 5 scho ol y ears , w hen he w as i n ki nder gar t en thr ough t hi r d gr ade, Patr i ck w ent6 to a p aro ch ial sch o o l, S t. M ax im il li an K o lbe (“ S t. M ax ”). D u ri n g the s u m m er o f 2 0 0 5 , an d in the 2 0 0 5 -20 0 6 sch o o l y ea r, w hen he w as i n four t h gr ade, he at t ended t he B enchmar k School (“B ench m ark”) , a pri vate s cho ol forchil dren w i t h d i sabi l i t i es. T he D i s t r i ct i s obl i gat ed undert he I D E A t o i dent i fyand lo c a te c h ild re n w h o n e e d sp e c ial e d u c a ti o n se rv ice s. It p u ts an n u al no ti ce s in the g en era l ci rcu lat ion n ew sp ap er tha t i n fo rm par ent s aboutt he avai l abi l i t y of eval uat i ons and the pr ocedur es for m aking an evaluat i on request , i ncludi ng that r equ est s m u st be i n w r i t i ng, thatt her e mustbe w r i t t en conse nt t o eval uat e, and t hat t her e ar e t i m el i nes forr eques t i ng due pr oces s . T he D i s t r i ct p ro v id e s th e sa m e in f

o rm a tio n o n its w e b site a n d o v e r p u b lic a c c e ss tele v isio n , an d p u ts p o ste rs a n d p a m p h lets w ith th is in f o rm a tio n in b o th D istric t sc h o o l b u il d in g s a n d in p riv a te sc h o o ls w ith in th e D istric t. H o m e o w n e rs r e c e iv e th is i n f o r ma t i o n i n t h e i rp r o p e r t yt a x b i l l s . Th e Di s t r i c ta l s o tr ai ns pr i nci pal s and s t aff

atpr i vat e s chool s about the r efe r r al pr oces s es and chi l d fi nd i s s ues . D ur i ng t he t i m e re l evant t o the pl ai n ti ff’ s cas e, t he Penns y l vani a D epart m entof Educat i on found thatt he D i s t r i ctw as 100% compl i ant w i t h i t s chi l d fi nd o b lig a tio n s . A ccor di ng t o t he pl ai nt i ffs , R i ta P

. fi r s tr eques t ed that Pat r i ck be e val uat ed for s peci al educa t i on s ervi ces i n J anuaryof 2003, aft erhe had s how n pr obl ems w i t h r eadi ng i n ki nder gar t en. B as ed on hi s ki nder gar t en t eac her ’ s r ecomm endat i o n , P atr i ck re c e iv e d T itl e I re a d in g se rv ic e s f ro m th e C h e ste r C o u n ty I nt erm edi at e U ni tdur i ng hi s fi r s tgr ade y ear , i n 2002 and 2003. T itle I is d e sig n e d to h e lp stu d e n ts re a c h sta te a c a d e m ic achieve mentl evels ; pri vate s cho ol s tud ents are guarant eed these7 s e rv ic e s u n d e r 2 0 U .S .C . § 6 3 0 1

. R i ta P. cl ai m s t hati n ear l y2003 s he cont act ed C ar ol G as par , t he S t
. M ax gui dance couns el or , and M i chel e M cC ann, t h e n t h e Di s t r i c tSu p e r v i s o ro f Sp e c i a l Ed u c a t i o n , s e e k i ng eval uat i on for Pat r i ck. T he pl ai nt i ffs cont end t hat M s . G as par cont act ed D i s t r i ctPsy chol ogi s tV i r gi ni a Sut t on aboutPatr i ck, a n d p e rso n a llyd e liv e re d re f e rra l d o c u m e n ts to th e D is tr ict in A pr i l of 2003. A s not ed bel ow , thes e i ndi vi dual s h ave deni ed t hatt h ese cont act s occurr ed. C ar ol G as par , t he gui dance couns el oras s i gned t o St

. M ax, test i fi ed thats he had no r ecol lect i on of any2003 l et t erfr om the pl ai nt i ffs r eques t i ng eval uat i on, and no copyof the l et t er . R i t a P. coul d notpr oduce a copy of t he l ett er , ei t her

. V i r gi ni a Sut t on, the s ch ool ps y chol ogi stw ho fac i l i t at ed non- publ i c s chool r efe r r al s i n the r el evantpartof t he D i s t r i ct , had no re cor d of anyconver s at i on w i t h any of t he pl ai nt i ffs or any document at i on rega r di ng Pat r i ck, des pi t e w hatthe A pp eal s Panel cal l ed her “extr aor di nar i l yt hor ough and met i cul ous r ecor d- keepi ng s y s t e m. ” ( Ap p . 6 6 5

. ) As we wi l l d i s c u s s f u r t h e rb e l o w, we agr ee w i t h t he H ea ri n g O ffi cer , t he A ppeal s Panel , and the D istri ct C o u rt that the D istri ct d id n o t r ec eive n o ti ce o f P atri ck ’s n e e d to b e e v a lu a te d in e a rl y2 0 0 3

. T he pl ai nt i ffs pr i vat el yr et a i n e da p s y chol ogi s t , D r . T r acy B ur ke, w ho eval uat ed P atr i ck i n A pr i l of 2003 and f ound thathe had di ffi cul t i es w i t h r eadi ng, r eadi n g com pr ehens i on, w r i t t en e x p re s s io n , a n d v is u a l- m o to r i n te g ra tio n . I n J u n e o f 2 0 0 3 , a v i s i o n e v a l u a t o r d e t e r m i n e d t h a tP a t r i c k n e e d e d v i s i o n th e r a p y. H e r ece i ved vi s i on t her apy and Ti t l e I r eadi ng s ervi ces t hr ough h is seco n d -gra d e y ea r.8 O n N ovember22, 2004, dur i ng Pat r i ck’ s t hi r d- gr ade y ear , t he pl ai nt i ffs w r ot e di r ec tl yt o t he D i s t r i ctr eques t i ng an e v a lu a tio n o f

P a trick a n d in f

o rm in g th e D istric t th a t a p riv a te ev alua tor, D r. L isi L ev isoh n , w as e x p ec ted to ev alua te P atri ck ’s el i gi bi l i t yfors peci al educa t i on s ervi ces on D ece m ber 14, 2004. Susa n A m s t er dam, a D i s t r i ctps y chol ogi s t , i nt erpr et ed t he l et t er t o be a r eques t for el i gi bi l i t y eval uat i on, and on N ovember29, 2004, t h e Di s t r i c t s e n t t wo f o r ms t o t h e p a r e n t s : a Re l e a s e of R ecor ds form and a Par entI nputform . T he r el eas e i nform ed the plai nti ffs t hat t here w ou l d be an inform at i on -gatheri ng process b ef o re the D is tr ic t i ssu ed the P erm issi o n to E v alua te fo rm (“ P T E ” ) an d th a t th e D istric t’s re c e ip t o f th e sig n e d f

o rm w o u ld s t ar tthe cloc k on t he t i m el i ne t o compl et e the eva l uat i on. T he p lain tiff s f ill e d o u t a n d re tu rn e d th e f o rm s to th e D istric t, e n c lo s in g a c o p yo f

D r. B u rk e ’s e v a lu a tio n o f P a tr ic k

. O n D ece m ber17, 2004, the D i s t r i cts entcopi es o f the release s to the g u idan ce co u n se lo r a t S t. M ax an d to D r. L evi s ohn. I n m i d- t o l at e J anuary of 2005, t he D istr i ct as s embl ed a Chi l d StudyT eam t o det erm i ne w hethert o i s s ue a PT E

. T he PT E w as i s s ued on February 2, 2005, 7 2 ca l endar d ay s af ter the da te o f th e plainti ff ’s N o v em b er 22 , 2 0 0 4 , let ter. D r. A m ste rd a m , the D istric t p sy c h o lo g ist, su g g e s ted to th e p lain tiff

s th a t th e yn o t sig n th e in iti a l P T E , s in c e it w o u ld have t o be amended once D r . L evi s on’ s p ri vat e eva l uat i on of P a trick w a s c o m p lete . S h e a ss u re d th e p lain tiff s th a t itw o u ld nott ake l ong t o s en d o u t a new form . T heydi d nots i gn t he i ni t i al PT E

. D r . L evi s ohn s entD r . A m s t er dam a l i s tof the eval uat i on m eas ur es s he had us ed, and not ed thatherr epor tw as n o ty e tf i n i s h e d

. Dr

. Am s t e r d a m d e c i d e d n o tt o i s s u e a n e w PTE9 u n til th e D istric t h a d D r. L e v iso h n ’s c o m p lete r e p o rt, w h ich it r ece i ved on A pr i l 5, 2005. D r . L evi s ohn found thatPat r i ck q u a l i fi ed fo r s pecial edu cat i on services becau se he w as both L earni ng D i s abl ed and M ent al l y G i ft ed. O n A pr i l 7, 2005, t he D i s t r i ct s ent a re vi s ed P T E , w hi ch the par ent s s i gned and mai l ed back on A pr i l 11, 2005, 64 day s aft erthe fi r s tform w as m ai l ed. T he form i ns t ruct ed the pl ai nt i ffs thatthe D i s t r i cthad 60 s chool day s t o compl et e i t s eval uat i on of Patr i ck. T he D i s t r i ctbegan t es t i ng Pat r i ck i n ear l yJ une of 2005. B efor e the D i s t r i ct began t es t i ng Pat r i ck, on t he advi ce of D r . L ev i s ohn, t he pl ai nt i ffs vi s i t ed the B enchmar k School

. T hey li k ed the s ch o o l, a n d a p p lied fo r th e 2 0 0 5 -20 0 6 sch o o l y ea r. T h e e arly a d m issi o n s p roc ess re q u ir ed the p lai n ti ff s to d ec lare P a trick ’s c a n d id a c y f

o r th e f a ll t e rm b yA p ril 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 , an d in th e sp rin g o f

2 0 0 5 , the p lain tiff

s a sk e d tea c h e rs a t S t. M a x to compl et e ques t i onnai r es r equi r ed by B enchmar k and w entt o a fa m il yinterview

. In l ate M ay o r ea rl y Ju n e of 2 0 0 5 , B en ch m ark acc ept ed Patr i ck forbot h t he 2005 s um m erpr ogr am and forthe 2 0 0 5 -2 0 0 6 sc h o o l ye a r. In e a rlyJu n e , the p lain tiff s s e n t a tuit ion d ep o sitto B e n ch m ark

. T h eyfin an ce d the B en ch m ark tuit ion thro u g h A M S , a p rog ram th at fro n ts th e e n ti re y ea r’s tui t i on t o a pr i vat e s chool an d requi r es thatpar ent s r epaythe b a n k o n a m o n th ly b a sis , w ith lim ited o p p o rtu n ityf o r p a re n ts to o p t o u t o f

f u ll p a ym e n t if th e ir c h ild d o e s n o t atte n d th e p riv a te s c h o o l. I n J ul yof 2005, the D i s t r i ctcompl et ed t es t i ng Pat r i ck and pr oduced a pr el i m i nary E val uat i on R epor t ( “ER ”) , w hi ch i ts ent to th e f a m ily . O n A u g u s t 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 , the p lain tiff s w ro te to d isp u te th e d ra f

t E R , b e c a u se it d id n o t id e n ti f y a sp e c if

icT he H ear i ng O ffi cerfound thatPatr i ck had pe r form ed 1 att he “a ver age” l evel dur i ng t he mat h por t i on of hi s eval uat i on byD r . L evi s ohn, des pi t e bec om i ng di zzy and notbei ng fami l i ar w ith so m e o f

th e typ e s o f

p ro b lem s. H e w a s n o t d o in g p o o rlyin m ath at St

. M ax. N ei t her t he D i s t r i ct nor D r. L evi s ohn p e rf o rm e d so c ial o r e m o tio n a l as se ss m e n ts b e c a u se h is p a re n ts rep o rt ed that P atri ck w as h ap p y , so cial, an d resp o n sible, an d D r. L evis oh n foun d hi m t o be pleas ant, j oy ful, and eng ag in g . H is te a c h e rs d e s c ri b e d h im a s p o s itiv e a n d m o tiv a te d

. See A pp. 646- 47. 10 l earni ng di s abi l i t yi n M ath C om put at i on and di d noti ncl ude as s es s m en ts of

Pat r i ck’ s s oci al and emot i onal funct i on. T he 1 pl ai nt i ffs al s o i nform ed the D i s t r i ct t hat Pat r i ck w oul d enr ol l at B enchmar k fort he 2005- 2006 s chool y ear , and thatt heyhad “no al t ernat i ve” beca u se t he D i s t r i ct ’ s I E P w oul d notbe off er ed u n til a f te r t h e b e g in n in g o f

th e s c h o o l yea r. ( A p p . 5 4 5 .) T h e D istric t f

in a lize d th e re p o rt a n d se n t it to th e f a m ily o n S ep tem b er 1 , 2 0 0 5 , b ef o re the b eg inn ing o f th e sc h o o l y ea r. T he r eporti ncorpor at ed manyof D r . L evi s ohn’ s fi ndi ngs, and i den t i fi ed a s peci fi c l earni ng di s abi l i t yi n W r i t t en Expre s s i on and R ea d ing

. A l t hough D r . L evi s ohn had notr ecomm ended occupa t i onal t her apy , t he D ist ri ct ’ s r epor ti ncl uded s uch a re c o m m e n d a tio n . T he school y earbegan on Sept ember6, 2005. Pat r i ck att ended B enchmar k. O n Sept ember 8 or9, 2005, the pl ai nt i ffs r e c e i v e d a n i n v i t a t i o n f

r o m t h e Di s tr i c t t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a n I EP m eet i ng. O n Sept ember13, 2005, t he I ndi vi dual i zed Educat i on11 Pr og r a m t e a m met t o de ve l op a n I EP. A ttha tmee t i ng , Ri t a P. s i gned the r evi s ed Sept ember 1, 2005, E R

. T he I E P t he D i s t r i ct devel oped pr ovi ded foroccupa t i onal ther apyand s m al l gr oup dir ecti nst ruct i on f

or L ang uag e A rt s, M at h, and G i ft ed N eeds. I tal s o addr es sed Patr i ck’ s s pel l i ng and keyboar d s ki l l s and n o t e d t h a th e q u a l i f

i e d f o re n r ol l men ti n t h e g i f t e d p r o g r a m. T he I E P i ncl uded a l ong l i s tof annual goal s forPatr i ck and sp e c if ic in stru c tio n s o n h o w h is p ro g re ss w a s to b e m e a su re d , in addi t i on t o s peci all ydes i gned i ns t ruct i on and pr ogr am modi fi c a t i on s . The pl a i nt i ff s di d n ota pp r ov e the I EP. C . T he A dm i ni s t rat i ve Proces s and the D i s t ri ct C ourt ’ s D eci s i on T h e pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed a due pr oces s compl ai nton O ct ober 5, 2005, al l egi ng cl aim s undert he I D E A , § 504 of the R ehabil it at i on A ct , and the Penns y l vani a School C ode. T hey s oughtcompensa t or yeduca t i o n fort he al l eged c hi l d fi nd v iolati o n s d u ri n g the 2 0 0 2 -20 0 3 an d 2 0 0 4 -20 0 5 sc h o o l y ea rs and foran al l eged de ni al of a FA PE , paym entforan Indepe nd ent Ed ucati on al E valuat i on (“I EE”) for the d ue p rocess heari ng , rei m bu rs em e nt fo r t he t w o pr e vi ou s I E E s, r ei m bur s ementforvi s i on t her apyi n 2003 and 2004, and tui t i on r ei m bur s ementforPatr i ck’ s t i m e atB enchmar k i n t he s um m er o f 2 0 0 5 an d the 2 0 0 5 -20 0 6 sch o o l y ea r. Th e He a r i n g Of

f i c e rl i mi t e d t h e I DEA a n d § 5 0 4 c l a i ms t o t h o s e a r i s i n g a f

t e rOc t o b e r5 , 2 0 0 3 , a p p l y i n g th e I DE A2004’ s t w o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i o n s. She concl uded thatthe D istri ct fu lfi ll ed it s ch il d fin d o b li g ati o n s an d that the D istri ct’s E R and I E P w er e app rop r i at e, and thatthe par ent s w er e not12 ent i t l ed t o compensa t or yeduca t i on betw een O ct ober2003 and M ay3, 2005, r ei m bur s ementforvi s i on t her apy , ortui t i on r ei m bur s ement
. T he H ear i ng O ffi ceraw ar ded 102 hour s of c o m p e n sa to rye d u c a tio n f o r th e p e rio d f

r o m M a y4 , 2 0 0 5 to J une 21, 2005, on t he t heory t hat i f t he D i s t r i ct had be en m o re p r o mpt a b o u t i t s e v a l u a t i o n a n d I EP, a FAPE sh o u ld have be en avai l abl e t o Pat r i ck on M ay4, 2005, and hi s par ent s coul d have tra n sf e rre d h im to a p u b lic sc h o o l in th e D istric t f o r th e las t six w e e k s o f th e s c h o o l yea r. B o th the pl ai nt i ff

s an d the D istri ct fil ed ex ce p ti o n s b ef o re t he A ppeal Panel

. T he panel hel d t hatt he H ear i ng O ffi cerhad err ed i n aw arding com pens at oryeduca t i on beca us e i ti s notan avai l abl e r emedyforpr i vat e s chool stud en ts w ho ar e pl ace d th e re u n ila t e r a lly b yth e irp a re n ts
. See 34 C

. F. R

. §§ 300. 137, 3 0 0 .1 3 8 . T h e p a n e l w ro te th a t [t]he rec o rd in it s en ti rety co m p els a c o n clus ion co n tr ary t o t he dec i s i on of the H ear i ng O ffi cer . T he H ear i ng O ffi cerbas ed herdeci s i on as t o compensa t oryeduca t i on on fac t s not i n evi dence ( i

. e. , t hatt he s tudentcoul d have been e nr ol l ed i n t he publ i c s chool du ri n g t hatper i od) and, contr aryt o evi dence pr es ent ed and t es t i m onygi ven. T he l ett ert o t he D i s t ri ct i n N ovemberas w el l as t he P are n t’ s test im o n y clea rl y d em o n str ates th e P are n ts w ere notpl anni ng t o m o v e t he Studentt o t he D i s t r i ctunt i l at l eas tt he 2005- 2006 y ear . . . . T her efor e, beca us e the Studentw as enr ol l ed i n a pr i vat e s chool , an d n o t i n the D i str i ct , and bec aus e the cl eart es t i m onyi ndi cat es that even i f the D i s t r i cthad compl et ed the eval uat i on i n a t i m el ym anner , the S tudentw oul d have r emai ned i n t he13 pr i vat e s chool l eads t hi s panel t o t he conc l us i on that compensa t or yeduca t i on i s notavai l abl e. (A p p . 6 8 3

. ) T h e p an el af firm ed the re st of

the H ea ri n g O ff

icer’s deci s i on. T he pl ai nt i ffs t hen fi l ed t hi s fede r al cas e s eeki ng r ever s al of the t w o pr i or deci s i ons and addi ng a § 1983 cl ai m . O n M ay 30, 2008, t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the D i s t r i ct ’ s M oti on for D ispo sit ion o n th e A d m inistrati v e R ec o rd a n d fo r S u m m ary J udgm ent
. T he courtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entfort he D i s t r i ct on t he p lai n t i ffs ’ § 1983 cl ai m s , ci t i ng ourdeci s i on i n A

. W

. v. J e rs e y C ity P u b lic S c h o o ls , 4 8 6 F

. 3 d 7 9 1 , 8 0 3 , 8 0 5 -06 (3d C ir

. 2007) , i n w hi ch w e hel d t hat § 1983 i s notan ava i l abl e r emedy for vi olat i on s of the ID E A and the R ehab i l i t at i on A ct , becau se bo t h st atutes ha ve s uf

fi c i e nt l yc ompr e he ns i ve r em edial schem es. L i ke the H ea ri ng O ffi cerand the A ppeal Panel , t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt a p p lied th e ID E A -2 0 0 4 tw o -y e a r sta tu te o f lim itatio n s to t he pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s , barr i ng anycl ai m s ar i s i ng befor e O ct ober 5, 20 03 , t w o y ears befo re t he pl ai nti ffs request ed a due p rocess h e a rin g . It co n c lu d e d th a t th e D istric t d id n o t v io late its c h ild f in d o b lig a tio n s, a n d th a t th e p lain tiff s w e r e n o t e n tit led to compensa t or yeduca t i on or tui t i on r ei m bur s ement
. T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt d e n ied th e D istric t’s re q u e st to a p p lyID E A -2 0 0 4 ’s s tatu te of l i m i t at ion s to t he § 504 cl ai m s , i ns t ead a ppl y i ng P enn sy l van i a’s t w o-y ear pers on al i njuryst atute of l i m i t at i on s.14 I I . D i s cus s i on A . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew T he pl ai nt i ffs m ade cl ai m s under t he ID E A , § 504 of the R ehabi l i t at i on A ct of 1973, and § 1983. T he di s t r i ctcour thad ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 0 U .S .C . § 1 4 1 5 (i )( 2 )( A ) a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1

. A s d iscu ssed ab o v e, th is case ca m e to th e D istri ct C o u rt aft ert he par ent s fi l ed a due pr oces s compl ai nt befor e a H ear i ng O ffi cer ; b o th p ar t i es fi l ed exc ept i ons t o t he off i cer ’ s deci s i on and the ca s e w entt o a S p ec ial E ducat i on A ppeal s Panel

. T he p a re n ts th e n f

iled a f e d e ra l co m p lain t. In re v iew in g a d isp u te b rou g h tunderthe I D E A ’ s adm inistrati v e p roc ess, a d istri ct co u rt gi ves “due w ei ght ” and defe renc e t o the fi ndi ngs i n the a d m in is tr a tiv e p ro c e e d in g s . B d. of E du c. v. R ow l ey , 45 8 U. S. 1 7 6 , 2 0 6 (19 8 2 ). W e h av e d esc ri b ed this “d u e w eigh t” st an d ard as “modi fi ed de novo ” re v ie w . S .H . v. S ta te- O

p e ra tedSc h . D ist. of the C i t

y of N ew ark , 3 3 6 F

. 3 d 2 6 0 , 2 6 9 -7 0 (3 d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). “Factual fi ndi ngs fr om t he admi ni s t r at i ve pr ocee di ngs ar e t o be cons i der ed pri m a faci e cor r ect , ” and i f t he re vi ew i ng cour tdoes notadher e t o t hos e fi ndi ngs , i ti s “‘ obl i ged t o expl ai n w hy

. ’ ” I d. at270 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. U nderthe tw o- t i ers peci al educa t i on s y s t em i n pl ace att he t i m e this c ase w as goi ng t hr ough t he admi ni s t r at i ve pr oces s , di s t r i ct cour t s ow e m or e defe r ence t o the fi ndi ngs of the A ppeal s Panel t han to tho s e of the H ear i ngPennsy lvan i a has now tr ans i t i oned t o a s i ngl e- t i er 2 admi ni s t r at ive pr oces s ; hear i ng offi cer s pr ovi de al l s t at e- l evel r e v i e w. 15 O ff icer. Car l is l e Ar e a Sc h

. v . Sc o t tP. , 62 F. 3d 520, 529- 30 ( 3d 2 C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). Th e s t a tu t e o f

l i mi t a t i o n s c l a i ms a n d th e p l a i n t i f f s ’ c l a i ms fo r co m p en sato ryed u ca ti o n an d tuit ion reim b u rse m e n t are s ubj ectt o pl enar yr evi ew as concl us i ons of l aw . T he other i s s u e s

— wh e t h e rt h e f

a mi l yp r o v e d a n e x c e p t i o n t o t h e I DE A2 0 0 4 sta tu te o f lim itatio n s, a n d w h e th e r th e D istric t f u lf ill e d its FA PE obl i gat i on s— are su b ject t o clea r error rev iew as q u esti o ns o f f a c t. S e e S

. H. , 336 F. 3d at271. T he pl ai nt i ffs ci t e W exlerv. W es t f i eld B oar d of

E ducat i on , 7 8 4 F

. 2 d 1 7 6 , 1 8 1 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 6 ), fo r th e p rop o sit ion that the a p p li ca ti o n o f th e ID E A ’s requi rem e n t s t o a stud ent’ s m edical and edu cat i on al need s i s a m ix e d q u e stio n o f

law a n d f

a c t, bu t o u r late r p re c e d e n t m a k e s it cl ear that “[t ]he i ssue o f w h e th e r an IE P i s approp ri at e i s a ques t i on of fa ct
. ” C a rlisle , 62 F. 3d at526. B . Sect i on 504 of

t he R ehabi l i t at i on A ct St at ut e of Li m i t at i ons T hi s cas e pos es an i s s ue of f i r s ti m pression: w hether ID E A -2 0 0 4 ’s tw o -y e a r sta tu te o f lim itatio n s s h o u ld a p p ly t o par al l el cl ai m s under§ 504 of the R ehabi l i t at i on A ct
. Sect i on 5 0 4 d o e s n o t h a v e its o w n s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tappl i ed Penns y l vani a’ s t w o- y ear16 per s onal i nj ur ys t atut e of l i m i t at i ons t o the p lai n ti ffs ’ § 504 cl ai m s , ci t i ng t he s t r ong pr efe r ence for i m por t i ng an ana l ogous s t at e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons w hen feder al s t atut es do noti ncl ude a n e x p r e s s s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s . D el C os t el l o v. I nt ’ lB hd. of T eam st ers , 4 6 2 U .S . 1 5 1 , 1 5 8 (1 9 8 3 ); H agger t y v. U SA i r, I nc. , 952 F. 2d 781, 783 ( 3d C i r . 1992)

. T he D i s t r i ctar gues thatthe D istric t C o u rt e rre d w h e n it ap p lied th e p e rso n a l in ju rysta tu te of l i m i t at i ons t o t hos e cl ai m s ; i t s ay s t hat t he cour t s houl d have i m por t ed the tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons fr om I D E A

- 2004. Th e Di s t r i c ta c k n o wl e d g e s t h a t p r i o rt o t h e p a s s a g e o f t h e I DEA am en d m ent s i n 2004 t he us e of the per s onal i nj uryl i m i t at i ons peri od w as approp ri at e, b ut ar gu es that the ID E A i s so an alog o u s to § 5 0 4 o f th e R eh ab il it ati o n A ct th at th e ID E A ’s l i mi t a t i o n s p e r i o d s h o u l d a p p l y . A c o u r tma yb o r r o w a l i m i t at i ons per i od fr om an anal ogous fede r al l aw w her e thatl aw
“ c lea rl yprovides a cl oser anal og ythan the av ai l able s t a te s t atut es , and w h en the feder al pol i ci es ats t ake a nd t he p rac ti c ali ti es o f li ti g ati o n m ak e tha t ru le a sign ifi ca n tl ym o re appr opr i at e vehi cl e fori nt er s t i t i al l aw m aki ng. ” D e lC o ste llo , 4 6 2 U .S . a t 1 7 2 ; see al

so Un i t e d

S t e e lWo rke rs o

f Am. v . Cr o wn C ork & Seal

C o. , 3 2 F .3 d 5 3 , 5 6 -5 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ), af f’ d s ub nom . N

. StarSt eel

C o. v. Thom as , 5 1 5 U .S . 2 9 (1 9 9 5 ). T he I D E A and § 504 of t he R ehabi l i t at i on A ctdo s i m i l ar s t atut or yw or k. T he I D E A pr ot ect s the r i ght s o f di s abl ed chi l dr en bym andat ing t hatpubl i c educ at i onal i ns t i tut i ons id e n tifya n d e f

f e c tiv e lye d u c a te th o se c h ild re n , o r p a y f o r th e ir educa t i on el s ew her e i f theyr equi r e spec i al i zed se r vi ces thatthe publ i c i ns t i tut i on cannotpr ovi de. Secti o n 504 of the R ehabi l i t at i on A cti s par al l el t o t he I D E A in it s pr ot ect i on of di s abl ed s tudent s : i t pr ot ect s t he r i ght s of di s abl ed chi l dr en by17 pr ohi bi t i ng di s cr i m i nat i o n ag ai ns ts tudent s on t he bas i s of di s a bi l i t y , a nd i t ha s c hi l d fi nd , e va l ua t i on , and F A PE re q u ire m e n ts, lik e th e ID E A . T h e R e h a b ili tatio n A c t is c e rta in lyc lo se r in su b

jec t m a tter an d g o a ls to th e ID E A th a n to th e P e n n sy lv a n ia p e rso n a l in ju ry sta tu te, w h ich d e a ls w ith to rts a g a in s t p e rs o n a n d p ro p e rt y . W hi l e we h a v e h e l d t h a ts i mi l a r i t yb e t wee n f e d e r al s t a tu t e s i s n o t e n o u g h t o j u s t i f y a p p l y i n g t h e s t at ut e of lim ita tio n s f

ro m o n e s ta tu te to c la im s m a d e u n d e r t h e o th e r, s ee K i ngvis i on P ay- P er - V

i ew , C or p. v. 898 B elm ont

, I nc. , 366 F. 3d 217, 2 22 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( “[T] he des i r e t o uni fyt he l i m i t at i ons per i ods of fe der al l aw s w i t h s i m i l arpurpos es i s not a s uffi ci ent r eas on t o adoptfede r al l i m i t at i ons per i ods

. ”) , t he “e xi s t ence and avai l abi l i t yof a m o r e s harpl yfocus ed fe der al anal ogue” i s an im p o rt a n t c o n s id e ra tio n . R os s i t erv. P ot t er , 35 7 F. 3d 26 , 33 (1st C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). H e re , w e c o n sid e r w h e th e r to a p p ly a g e n e ra l sta te per s onal i nj ur yl i m i t at i ons per i od t o cl ai m s m ade undera fe der al sta tu te w ith v e rysp e c if ic g o a ls, w h e n C o n g re ss h a s re c e n tly a c ted to in c lu d e a sta tu te o f lim itatio n s in a f e d e ra l sta tu te w ith v e ry s im ila r g o a ls

. See N o rm an J. S ing er, Statutes a n d S tatu tory C ons t ruct i on 702 ( 2003 r ev. ed. ) (“ W h en t w o orm or e s t atut es o f lim itatio n s d e a l w ith th e sa m e su b jec t m a tter, th e sta tu te w hi ch i s m or e r ece nt and s peci fi c w i l l pr evai l overt he ol derand m or e gene r al one. ”)

. W e also n o te thatther e ar e fe w fede r al s t a tu t e s a s c l o s e l yr e l a t e d , a n d u n d e rwh i c h s u c h s i mi l a rc l a i ms m aybe br ought , as t he I D E A and § 504 of the R ehab il i t at i on A c t. A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tpoi nt ed out , w e “t ake s er i ous l yt he Supr eme C our t ’ s admoni t i on t hat ana l ogous s t at e s t atut es of18 lim itatio n s a re to b e u se d u n les s th e yf ru stra te o r sig n if

ica n tly i nt er fer e w i t h fede r al pol i ces . ” C row n C ork , 32 F.3d at 57. H e re , w e f

e a r th a t a p p ly in g th e sta te sta tu te o f lim itatio n s c o u ld f ru s t r a t e f e d e r a l p o l i c yi n c e r t a i n s i tu a t i o n s . T h e I DE A h a s two s peci fi c exc ept i ons t o t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons : t he l i m i t at i ons per i od does notappl yi f a pa r entw as pr event ed fr om r eques t i ng a d u e p ro c e ss h e a rin g b e c a u se o f e ith e r (1 ) sp e c if

ic m i s r epr es ent at i ons byt he s chool t hati thad r es ol ved the pr obl em, or ( 2) t he school ’ s w i t hhol di ng of s t atut or i l yr equi r ed inf o rm ati o n fro m the p are n t. 2 0 U

. S

. C

. § 1 4 1 5 (f)(3)(D ). T h ere ar e no s uch exce pt i ons t o t he Penns y l vani a s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons per i od forper s onal i nj urycl ai m s . I n addi t i on, t ol l i ng pr i nci pl es th a t af f e c t th e a p p lica tio n o f

sta te s tatu tes o f

lim itatio n s w o u ld p re su m a b ly n o t a f

f e c t th e ID E A sta tu te o f lim itatio n s, w ith its e x p re s s e x c e p tio n s to th e lim ita tio n s p e ri o d

. I n t hi s c a s e , t he pl a i nt i ff s make c hi l d fi nd and FA PE cl ai m s underbot h t he I D E A and t he R ehabi l i t at i on A ct
. A l l of t h e p l a i n t i f

f s ’ § 5 0 4 cl a i ms a r e p r e mi s e d o n t h e i rI DEA cl ai m s— t hey m ake n o separat e cl ai m of d isa b ili ty di s cr i m i nat i on under§ 5 0 4

. I tdoes notm ake s ens e thatt he v irtu a llyid e n tica l cla im s m a d e u n d e r th e se tw o sta tu tes w o u ld be tr eat ed di ffe r ent l y fr om a s t atut e- of- l i m i t at i ons per s pect i ve: C ongr es s has exp res s ed an i nt er es ti n pr om pt l yr es ol vi ng di s put es undert he I D E A , as ev iden ce d byi t s pas s age of t he s t atut e- of- l i m i t at i ons amendm ent
. I f a pl ai nt i ff w as barr ed fr om as ser t i ng an I D E A cl ai m beca us e the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had run and nei t herof the exc ept i o n s ap p li ed, w hys houl d t he id e n tica l c laim , m a d e u n d e r th e R e h a b ili tatio n A c t, be su b jec t to differ ent t oll i ng pri ncipl es?19 W e a re c o n v in c e d th a t th e ID E A ’s lim itatio n s p e rio d is a bett er fi t for educa t i on cl ai m s m ade under t he R eh abi l i t at i on A c t th a n th e p e rso n a l in ju ry sta tu te o f lim itatio n s. A lth o u g h it appea r s t hat none of our s i s t er ci r cui t s have fac ed t h is i ssue, d i s t r i c tc o u r t s c o n f

r o n t i n g t h e i s s u e h a v e c o n c l u d e d t h a tc l a i ms foreduca t i on undert he R ehabi l i t at i on A cts houl d be governed b yth e I D E A ’ s s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . See, e. g. , B el lv. B d. of E d uc of A l buquer que Pub Sch. , N o. 06- 1137, 2008 W L 4104070, at*24 ( D

. N

. M

. M ar . 26, 2008) ( hol di ng t hatt he I DEA’ s l i mi t a t i o n s p e r i o d a p p l i e s t o Re h a b i l i t a t i o n Ac tc l a i ms w h ere all claim s are fo r ed u ca tio n an d there are n o p u re d is c ri m in a tio n c la im s m a d e u n d e r t h e R e h a b ilita tio n A c t)

. T he st atute of l i m i t at i on s fr om the ID E A provides a “c lose r an alog y ” to th e R eh ab il it ati o n A ct than P en n sy lvan ia’s p erso n a l i n

jurystatu te of

li m it ati o n s. U n d er D e lC o ste llo , “the fede r al pol i ci es ats t ake and t he pr act i cal i t i es of l i t i gat i on m ake t hatrul e a s i gni fi cant l ym or e appr opr i at e vehi cl e fori nt er s t i t i al l a wm a k i n g . ” 4 6 2 U. S. a t 1 7 2

. Th e r e f o r e , we h o l d t hat t he I D E A ’ s t w o- y ear s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons appl i es t o cl ai m s m ade f o r e d u c a tio n u n d e r § 5 0 4 o f th e R e h a b ili tatio n A c t. C . The D i s t r i c t ’ s O bl i ga t i ons unde r t he I D EA and t he R ehabi l i t at i on A ct N ext , w e addr es s w hethert he D i s t r i ctC our tw as corr ect t hat t he D i s t r i ct s at i s fi ed t he re qui r ement s of t he I D E A and the R ehabi l i t at i on A cti n i t s i dent i fi cat i on and eva l uat i on of Patr i ck f o r s p e c ia l e d u c a tio n s e rv ic e s .A tor al ar gum ent , t he pl ai nt i ffs ar gued thatt he C hes t er 3 C ount yI nt erm edi at e U ni t , w h ich pr ovi ded Patr i ck w i t h T i t l e I s ervi ces at St

. M ax, s houl d be cons i der ed an a gentof the D i s t r i ctand i t s know l edge of Patr i ck’ s need f

orT i t l e I s ervi ces s houl d be i m put ed t o t he D i s tr i ctand cons i der ed not i ce of a need for evaluat i on un der the ID E A

. T he p l ai nti ffs did not r ai se t hi s i s s ue bef

or e t he D i s t r i ctC ourt ; al t hough t hei rbr i efs on a p p e a l me n t i o n t h a t P a t r i c k g o t T i t l e I s e r v i c e s f r o m th e CC I U, 20 1. T he P l ai nt i f

f s ’ C l ai m s B ef

ore N ovem ber 22, 2004 T he pl ai nt i ffs cl ai m t hatt heyi ni t i al l ys oughts ervi ces for Pat r i ck i n ear l y2003. A s w e di s cus s ed above , th ere is no e v i den ce i n the r ecord, apart from t he t est i m on y of R i t a P ., to su p p o rtthis asse rt ion

. T h e H ea ri n g O ff icer fo u n d that R it a P

. ’s cl ai m t hats he had i ni t i at ed the eva l uat i on pr oces s i n J anuaryof 2003 w as notcr edi bl e: s he coul d notpr ovi de a copyof the l ett er s he cl ai m s s he w r ot e, and num er ous D i s t r i ctand s chool empl oy ees w i t h w hom s he cl ai m ed t o s peak have no r ecor ds of their co n v ersa ti o n s. T h e H ea ri n g O f f ic e r f o u n d that D r. V irg in ia S u tto n , the sc h o o l p sy c h o lo g ist w h o w o rk e d w ith a ll non- publ i c s chool r efe r r al s i n t he D i s t r i ct , had no r ecor d of any c o n v e rsa tio n w ith e ith e r p a re n t o r d o c u m e n tatio n re f e rrin g to Pat r i ck, des pi t e mai nt ai ni ng an “e xtr aor di nar i l ythor ough and m e ticu lo u s re c o rd -k e e p in g sy ste m .” (A p p . 6 4 2 .) T h e A p p e a ls P a n e l an d th e D istric t C o u rt a c c e p ted th is f in d in g , an d w e w ill notdi s turb t he fi ndi ngs of the H ear i ng O ffi certhatthe D i s t r i ct d id n o t h a v e n o tice o f

P a trick ’s n e e d to b e e v a lu a ted u n til it r ece i ved R i t a P. ’ s N ovember22, 2004, l ett er . W e w i l l cons i der onl yt hos e cl ai m s ar i s i ng aft erthatdat e. 3or al ar gum entw as t he fi r s tt i m e theyar gued t hat t he C C I U w as a n a g e n t o f

th e D istric t. A s th is a rg u m e n t w a s n o t p ro p e rly ra is e d , w e w ill n o t c o n s id e r i t. 21 2. T i m el i nes s of

E val uat i on T he pl ai n ti ffs al l ege thatt her e w as an unl aw ful del ay betw een t he par ent s ’ r eques t for an eval uat i on of Patr i ck and the compl et i on o f t he pr oces s . T he H ear i ng O ffi ceror der ed 102 hour s of compensa t or yeduca t i on as an equi t abl e r emedyfort he t i m e t he fa m i l yhad t o w ai t for t he D i stri ct ’s evaluat i on process to b e c o m p let ed

. T h e H ea ri n g O ff icer ca lle d th e D istri ct’s del ay“egr egi ous ” and s ai d thatt he D i s t r i ctdeni ed Patr i ck the p o s s ib ility o f

re c e iv in g a F A P E f

o r M a ya n d J u n e 2 0 0 5

. T h e D istric t ac k n o w led g e s t h e d e lay bu t ar g u e s th a t it w as due t o t he par ent s ’ s eeki ng a pr i vat e I E E

. Fur t her , t he D i s t r i ctcont ends , t he d el ayw as harm l es s , beca us e i tm ade no d if f e re n c e in th e p a r e n ts ’ d e c isio n to k e e p P a trick in p riv a te sc h o o l— R ita P . tes tifie d th a t th e p lain tiff s d id n o t in ten d to m o v e P atri ck f

ro m S t. M ax d u ri n g the 2 0 0 4 -20 0 5 sch o o l y ea r. T he A ppeal s Panel agr eed w i t h t he D i s t r i ctand r ever s ed t he H ear i ng O ffi cer ’ s aw ar d of compensa t o r yeduca t i on, fi ndi ng t hatt he “r ecor d r ead in i t s ent i r etycompel s a conc l us i on contr aryt o t he dec i s i on of the H ear i ng O ffi cer ” bec aus e the r ecor d s how ed that t her e w as no w ayPatr i ck w oul d have gone t o publ i c s chool unt i l the 2005- 2006 s chool y ear , and compensa t or yeduca t i on s houl d only h ave be en aw ar ded i f the r ecor d s how ed that , i f th e eval uat i on had bee n t i m el y , t he22 p a re n ts w o u ld h a v e tr a n s f e rr e d h im to th e D is tr ic t. ( A p p . 6 8 3 .) T h e D istric t C o u rt f

o u n d th a t th e D istric t to o k a n “ u n d u ly l ong t i m e t o compl et e i t s eval uat i o n , ” butt hatt he eva l uat i on w as s ubs t ant i vel yappr opr iat e and thata pr ocedur al vi ol at i on a lo n e c a n n o t s u p p o rt a c o m p e n s a to ry e d u c a tio n a w a rd

. See 20 U .S .C . § 1 4 1 5 (f

)(3 )(E )(ii); Me. Sch

. A dm i n. D ist
. N o. 35 v. M

r. R. , 321 F. 3d 9, 19 ( 1s tC i r . 2003) ( “W e r ecogni ze that co m p en sato ryed u ca ti o n is no t an a p p rop ri ate rem ed y fo r a p u re lyp ro c e d u ra l v io latio n o f th e ID E A ” ); E r i cks on v. A l bu qu erque P ub

. Sch s. , 1 1 9 F

. 3 d 1 1 1 6 , 1 1 2 2 -23 (10 th C ir

. 1 9 9 9 ) (“T h e d istri ct co u rtp rop erlyfo u n d that co m p en sato ry educa t i on i s notan appr o p ri ate r emedyfora pr ocedur al v io latio n o f

th e ID E A .”). W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt. W hi l e the del ayi n eval uat i ng Patr i ck w as unfor tunat e, t he r ecor d does nots how thatthe del ayhad anyi m pacti n t he pl ai nt i ffs ’ deci s i on t o keep Patr i ck atSt

. M ax fort he 2004- 2005 s c h o o l yea r. 3. C hi l d Fi nd O bl i ga t i ons School di s t r i ct s hav e a cont i nui ng obl i gat i on undert he ID E A an d § 5 0 4 to ide n ti fyan d ev alua te all stud en ts w h o are reas on ablysuspect ed o f hav in g a dis abil i t yun der the st atutes
. R i dgew ood , 1 7 2 F .3 d a t 2 5 3 . T h e H e a rin g O f f ice r, th e A p p e a ls P a n e l, a n d th e D istric t C o u rt a ll co n c lu d e d th a t th e D istric t d id notvi ol at e i t s chi l d fi nd obl i gat i ons . T he p la i nt i ffs ’ ar gum ent res t s pri m ari l yo n thei r unprov en all egati on t hat theyfi rs t p ro v id e d n o tice to th e D istric t in Ja n u a r yo f 2 0 0 3 . A s w e sa id ab o v e, w e w il l no t distu rb th e f ind ing s o f

the H ea ri n g O ff

icer, A ppeal s Panel , and D i s t r i ct C our t t hatt he D i s t r i ctdi d nothave23 not i ce of Pat r i ck’ s need t o be eva l uat ed unt i l t he par ent s ’ l ett er of N ovember22, 2004. T h e D is tr ict a lso p o in ts o u t th a t it s c h ild f in d e f f o rts, in th is c a se a n d in o th e r c a se s, a re c o m p r e h e n s iv e : itro u tin e ly pos t s chi l d fi nd not i ces i n the l ocal paper , m akes t he i nform at i on a v a ilab le o n its w e b site , an d se n d s re sid e n ts th e in f o rm a tio n in th e ir tax b ill s. T a rg e ted p o ste rs a n d p a m p h lets a re p lac e d in pr i vat e s chool s . T he Penns y l vani a D epart m ent o f E ducat i on w a s s a tisf

ied th a t th e D istric t w a s 1 0 0 % c o m p lian t w ith its c h ild f in d o b li g ati o n s d u ri n g the re leva n t t im e. T h e D istri ct C o u rt w as c o n v inc ed that the D istri ct’s ch il d fin d ac ti v it ies w ere a p p ro p ria te; w e a re a s w e ll. 4. F ree and A ppropri at e Pu bl i c E ducat i on E very di s abl ed s tudent i s ent i t l ed t o an FA PE underthe I D E A

. 20 U

. S. C

. § 1412. I tm us tbe s peci al l y des i gned t o m eet th e u n iq u e n e e d s o f th a t c h ild , b e p ro v id e d u n d e r p u b lic s upervi s i on an d d ir ect i on. and be pr ovi ded atno cos tt o t he par ent s . T he H ear i ng O ffi cer , t he A ppeal s Pa n el, and the D istri ct C o u rtall ag ree d that the IE P an d the E R w ere appr opr i at e and metI D E A r equi r ement s. T he pl ai nt i ffs ar gue t hatt he D i s t r i ctdeni ed Patr i ck a FA PE beca us e the E R di d not i dent i fyhi m as havi ng a l earni ng di s abi l i t yi n m ath comput at i on and di d not as s es s hi s s oci al and emot i onal funct i oni ng. A s t he A pp e a l s Pa n e l f

o u n d , th o s e a r e a s wer e n o ti d e n t i f i e d as s us pect ed di s abi l i t i es and s o w er e pr operly ex cl uded fr om t he E R

. B as ed o n the r ecor d, the D i s t r i ct ’ s eval uat i on of Patr i ck and the I E P i toffe r ed hi m w er e s ubs t ant i vel yappr op ri ate a nd r eas onabl ycal cu l at ed t o pr ovi de a meani ngful educa t i onalT he S upr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n For es tG r ove Sc hool 4 Dis tr i c t v . T. A. , 129 S. C t
. 2484 ( 2009) , addr es s ed the i s s ue of w hetherpl ai nt i ffs m aybe r ei m bur s ed forpr i vat e s peci al educa t i on s ervi ces w hen the s tudenti s uni l at er al l ypl ace d i n a pr i vat e i ns t i tut i on. T he C our thel d t h at, underthe I D E A , s uch s ervi ces m er i t ed re i m bur s ementi f the publ i c i ns t i tut i on di d not pr ovi de a FA PE , even i f t he s tudenthad neve rr ece i ved s peci al e d u c a tio n s e rv ic e s a t th e p u b lic in s titu tio n . For es tG r ove i s not r el evantt o t he s i tuat i on her e, w her e t he D i s t r i ct di d not denyt he 24 benef i t. W e agre e w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatthe D i s t r i ctm et t h e F AP E r e q u i r e me n t s o f th e I DE A. 5. T ui t i on R ei m burse m ent and C om p ens at ory E ducat i on T h e p lai n ti ff

s see k tuit ion re im b u rsem en t fo r P atri ck ’s pl ace m entatB enchmar k dur i ng t he s um m ero f 2005 and the 2005- 2006 s chool y ear , bas ed on thei ral l egat i ons tha tthe D is tr ic t’ s E R a n d IE P w e re in a p p ro p ri a te
. T he I D E A r equi res the s t at e t o r ei m bur s e par ent s for pr i vat e s chool tui t i on i n s om e s i tuat i ons w her e the s chool “had n o t m a d e a f

r e e a p p ro p ria te e d u c a tio n a v a ilab le to th e c h ild in a tim e ly m a n n e r p ri o r t o th a t e n ro llm e n t.” 2 0 U .S .C . § 1 4 1 2 ( a )(1 0 )(C )(ii); see al so W i nkelm an ex r el

. W

i nkelm an v. P a rm a C ity S c h . D ist. , 5 5 0 U .S . 5 1 6 , 5 3 2 (2 0 0 7 ); F l or ence C ount y S ch. D is t
. v. C ar t er , 5 1 0 U. S

. 7 , 1 3 ( 1 9 9 3 )

. No r ei m bur s ementi s r equi r ed i f t he school offe r ed a FA PE and the par ent s p lace d t he chi l d i n a pr i vat e s chool anyw ay . T he 4s tudent a F A PE and w her e t he student not onl y neverr ece i ved s peci al educa t i on s ervi ces f r om t he D i s t r i ct , butw as never e n ro lle d in th e D is tr ic t in th e f ir s t p la c e . 25 H e a rin g O f

f ice r, th e A p p e a l P a n e l, an d th e D istric t C o u rt a ll found thatt he D i s t r i ctoffe r ed a FA PE

. W e agr ee. In th e a lt ern ati v e, th e p lai n tif fs s ee k co m p en sato ry educa t i on bas ed on event s fr om t he 2002- 2003 s ch o o l y ear t hr ough t he 2004- 2005 s chool y ear . “‘ A di s abl ed s tudent ’ s r i ght t o compensa t or yeduca t ion acc rues w hen the s chool know s or sh o u ld k n o w th a t th e stu d e n t is re c e iv in g a n in a p p ro p ria te educa t i on. ’ ” L a u re n W . v. D e fla m in is , 480 F. 3d 2 59, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng R i dgew ood , 1 7 2 F .3 d a t 2 5 0 )). T h e rig h t to compensa t or yeduca t i on ar i s es notfr om t he d en ial of an appr o p ri at e I E P, butfr om t he deni al of appr opr i at e educ at i on. R i dgew ood , 1 7 2 F .3 d a t 2 5 0

. A s w e have s t at ed above , the D i s t r i ctdi d notr ece i ve not i ce thatPat r i ck nee ded eva l uat i on fors peci al educa t ion s ervi ces unt i l N ovembero f 2 004, s o t he pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s for co m p en sato ryed u ca ti o n b ef o re tha t po int m u st fail

. M o reo v er, as w e have di s cus s ed ab o v e, a pr ocedur al vi ol at i on cannot su p p o rta c o m p en sato ryed u ca ti o n claim , so the f ac t th at th ere w as a del ay i n pr ovi di ng the eva l uat i on and I E P t o t he pl ai nt i ffs cann ot s ust ai n thei r com pen sato ryedu cat i on cl ai m , becau se P a tr ic k ’s s u b s ta n tiv e ri g h t s w e re n o t a f f e c te d

. See, e. g. , Me. Sc h . A dm in . D ist. , 3 2 1 F

. 3 d at 19 (ho lding that “c o m p en sato ry educa t i on i s notan appr opr i at e re m edy fora pur el ypr ocedur al v io la tio n o f

th e ID E A ” ).26 F u rt h e r, co m p e n sa to rye d u c a tio n is n o t an a v a ilab le re m e d yw h e n a stu d e n t h a s b e e n u n ilate ra lly e n ro lled in p riv a te s c h o o l. See 20 U

. S. C

. § 1412( a) ( 10) ; 34 C

. F.R

. §§ 300. 137, 3 0 0 .1 3 8 , 3 0 0 .1 4 8 (c ); I

n r e T h e E d u c a t i o n a l A s s ig n me n to f J

. D. , Spec. Ed u c . No. 1 1 2 0 , a t1 4 ( Pa

. Sp e c . Ed u c . App e a l s Pa n el 2 0 0 1 ), avai lable at http ://od r. p att an . n et/ O D R ap p s/A p p 1120. pdf ( “ [ T ] u i t i o n r e i mb u r s e me n ta n d c o mp e n s a t o r ye d u c a t i o n a r e t wo di s t i nctr emedi es . T heyar e noti nt er change abl e. T ui t i on re im b u rse m e n t is a re m e d yto p a re n ts w h o h a v e u n ila ter a lly p lac e d th e ir c h ild in a p riv a te sc h o o l w h e n a d istric t o f f e rs th e ir chi l d an i nappr opr i at e educa t i onal pl ace m entand the pr opos ed I E P w as i nap p ropri at e undert he I D E A t her ebyfai l i ng t o gi ve t he ch i l d F A P E

. In contr ast , com pen sat oryedu cati on i s a r etr os pect i ve and i n ki nd r emedyforfai l ur e t o p rov ide an ap p rop ri ate ed u ca ti o n fo r a p eriod o f ti m e.” (cit ati o n s o m itted)). A s t he A ppeal s Panel not ed, the r ecor d s how s tha tPa t r i ck has neverbeen enr ol l ed i n publ i c s chool

. T her efor e, c o m p e n s a to ry e d u c a tio n is n o t a n a v a ila b le re m e d y . 6. R e i m bur s e m e nt f or I EE s and Vi s i on Ther apy A par enthas t he r i ghtt o an I E E atpubl i c expe ns e i f the par entdi s agr ees w i t h t he eva l uat i on obt ai ned bythe s chool

. 34 C .F .R . § 3 0 0 .5 0 2 (b )(1 ); Sch aff er v. W east , 546 U

. S. 49, 60 ( 2005)

. T he pl ai nt i ffs s eek r ei m bur sem en tfort he 2003 and 2 0 05 I E E s t hatt heyobt ai ned pr i vat el y , and forvi s i on t her apy th e yo b ta in e d p ri v a te ly f ro m J u ly 2 0 0 3 th ro u g h M a rc h 2 0 0 4

. T he pl ai nt i ffs m aynotr ec ei ve r ei m bur s ementfort he 2003 I E E and t h e 2 0 0 3- 2004 vi s i on ther apybeca us e Patr i ckC o m p a re T e re a n c e D . v. Sc h . D ist. o f P h ila , 57 0 F. 5 Sup p . 2 d 7 3 9 ( E

. D

. Pa. 2008) ( hol di ng thatt he appl i cat i on of 27 r ece i ved t hos e s ervi ces befor e t he D i s t r i ct knew ors houl d have know n t hatPat r i ck need ed eval uat i on fors peci al educa t i on s ervi ces . T he 2005 I E E is n o tel i gi bl e forr ei m bur s ement b e c a u s e t h e p a r e n t s h a d a l r e a d y ma d e a n a p p o i n t me n t f o r t he I E E w hen theyr eques t ed D i s t r i cteval uat i on. T he H ear i ng O ffi cer, A pp eal s P anel, and D i stri ctC ou rtal l held that because t h e p a r e n t s wer e n o t c h a l l e n g i n g t h e Di s t r i c t ’ s e v a l u a t i o n, t he D i s t r i ctw as notr es pons i bl e forr ei m bur s ement
. W e agr ee. D . I D EA St at ut e of

Li m i t at i ons T he D i s t ri ctC our tappl i ed the tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons from ID E A

- 2004 t o the pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s , barr i ng cl ai m s ar i s i ng befor e O ct ober5, 2003. T he pl ai nt i ffs cl ai m that t hi s i s an unl aw fu l retr oact i ve appl i cat i on of the l i m i t at i ons per i od, ci t i ng L an dg raf v. U S I F ilm P rods. , 511 U

. S. 244, 265 (1 9 9 4 ). T h e D istric t ar g u e s th a t th e D is trict C o u rt p ro p e rly barr ed the pr e- O ct ober5, 2003, I D E A cl ai m s beca us e the amendm ent s w er e i n eff ecton O ct ober5, 2005, w hen the p a re n ts in itia te d th e ird u e p ro c e s s re q u e s t. T he i s s ue of w hetherI D E A

- 2004’ s tw o- y ear sta tut e of l i m i t at i on s appl i es t o cas es w her e the under l y i ng event s t ook pl ace befor e I D E A

- 2004’ s eff ect i ve dat e i s an im p o rt antone, and one thatourcourthas noty etaddr es s ed. A num berof our di s t ri ctcour t s have de al tw i t h t he i s s ue, and r eac hed di ffe r ent res ult s. H ow ever, w e w i l l no tre a c h that i ssue t od ay , becau se

5ID E A -2004 ’s t w o-y ear s t atute of l i m i t at i on s to the p l ai nti ffs’ co m p en sato ryed u ca ti o n claim s arisin g b ef o re the statu te’s en ac tm en t w as im p erm issi b lyretroac ti v e u n d er Landgraf ), J

. L. v. A m bri dg e A rea Sch

. D ist. , N o. 06- 1652, 2009 W L 1119608 (W .D . P a . A p r. 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( s a m e ), and St eve n I

. v. C ent
. B ucks Sc h . D ist. , N o. 08- 571, 2009 W L 415767 ( E

. D

. Pa. Fe b. 18, 2 0 0 9 ) (sa m e ), w i th E van H

. v. U ni onvi l l e- C hadds For d Sch. D ist. , N o. 07- 4990, 2008 W L 4791634 ( E

. D

. Pa. N ov. 4, 2008) (hol ding that t he st atute of l i m i t at i on s bars cl ai m s t hat a rose p r i o r t o its e n a c tm e n t) , and Sc h

. Dis t
. o f P h i l a v . De b o r a h A. , N o. 08- 2924, 2009 W L 7 7 8 3 21 ( E

. D

. Pa. M ar . 24, 2009) (sam e). B eca us e w e dec l i ne to rul e on the I D E A s t atut e of

6 l i mi t a t i o n s i s s u e , we wi l l n o ta d d r e s s wh e t h e re i t h e ro f t h e t wo e x c e p tio n s to th e s ta tu te o f lim itatio n s— sp e c ific m i s rep r es ent at i ons orw i t hhol di ng of i nform at i on byt he D istri ct— ap p ly

. 2 0 U

. S

. C

. § 1 4 1 5 (f)(3)(D ). 28 w h e th e r o r no t w e a p p lyth e tw o -y e a r sta tu te o f lim itatio n s, a ll o f th e p lai n ti ff

s’ claim s tha t are su p p o rt ed b y th e rec o rd w ere t i m el yfi l ed. T her e ar e no cl ai m s t hat pr e- dat e the not i ce gi ven i n N ov e m ber 200 4, and the p l ai nti ffs fi l ed thei r due process re q u e st in O c to b e r o f

2 0 0 5 , so th e re is n o re a l issu e o f th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s o r its re tro a c tiv ityh e re . A n yru lin g o n th e sta tu te of l i m i t at i ons w oul d be pur el yadvi s ory . N o t w i t hs t andi ng t he part i es ’ des i r e forus t o do s o, w e dec l i ne t o opi ne on thi s i s s ue w hen i ti s not i m pli cat ed in the case b efore us. 6
A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l R E V E R S E the D istri ct C o u rt ’s29 ru lin g w ith re sp e c t to th e a p p lica b ili tyo f th e P e n n sy lv a n ia p e r s o n a l i n

j u r ys t a tu t e o f

l i mi t a t i o n s t o th e p l a i n t i f f s ’ c l a i ms u n d e r § 5 0 4 o f

th e R e h a b ili tatio n A c t, bu t w ill A F F IR M its o rd e r g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t to th e D istric t.