N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
TOB Y DOUGLAS, in his offic ia l c a pa c i ty , a s Dire c t or of the C a lifornia De pa rtm e nt of He a lth C are Se rvic e s, Pe titione r - Appe lle e , v. C ALIFOR

NIA OFFIC E OF ADM INISTR

ATIVE HEARINGS, Dire c tor, R

e sponde n t , V. PAR ENTS ON B EHALF OF STUDENT J.C ., by and through his Gua rdia ns a d Lite m , C .C . a

nd R
. C ., a n d C .C . a nd R .C ., individually , R

e a l-pa rty -in-inte re st - Appe lla nt., And C UPER TINO UNION SC H O OL DISTR IC T; SANTA C LAR A C OUNTY No. 15-15261

D.C . No. 5:13-c v-05306-R M W
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

M AY13 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.OFFIC E OF EDUC ATION,

R

e a l-pa rty -in-inte re st. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R ona ld M . Whyte , Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 11, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : NOONAN, W . FLETC HER , a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . The pa re nts of J.C ., a

c hild with a

disa bility who re c e ive s oc c upationa l the ra py se rvic e s a s pa

rt of his individua

liz e d e duc a tion progra

m (“ IEP” ), a

p pe a l the d istric t c o urt’ s orde r granting theC a lifornia De pa rtm e nt of He a lth C are Se rvic e s’ s pe tition for writ of ordina ry and a dm inistra

tive m anda

m us a n d de c la ra tory re lie f. The distric t c ourt a l so dismisse d the pa re nts’ c ounte rc la i m s a

nd de nie d the ir m otions for a ttorne y ’ s fe e s a

nd for a sta y put orde r. R e vie wing this que stion of sta

tutory inte rpre tation de novo, Be e man v . TDI Manage d C areSe rv s., Inc
. , 449 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th C ir. 2006), we re ve rse . 1. C a l. Gov’ t C o d e § 7575(a ) provide s tha t C a lifornia

C hildre n’ s Se rvic e s (“ C C S” ) “ sha ll be re s ponsiblefor the provision of me dic a l ly ne c e s sa ry
oc c upationa l the ra

py . . . by re a son of m e d ic a l dia gnosis a nd whe n c onta ine d in the c hild’ s individualiz e d e duc ation progra m .” B y c om pa rison, qua l ifie d pe rsonne l 2from

loc a l e duc a tion a ge nc ie s a re to provide re lat e d se rvic e s tha t are not de e m e d to be m e dic a lly

ne c e ssa ry by the De pa rtm e nt of He a lth C are Se rvic e s, but tha t the
c hild’ s IEP te am

“ de te rm ine s a

re ne c e ssa

ry in orde r to a ssist a

c hild to be ne fit from spe c ia l e duc a tion.” Id. § 7575(a )(2). The De p artm e nt of He a lth C are Se rvic e s

“ sha ll de te rm ine whe the r a [C C S] e ligiblepupil, or a pupil with a

priva te m e dic a l
re fe rra l[,] ne e ds m e d ic a lly ne c e ssa ry oc c upat iona l the ra

py . ” Id. § 7575(b). While it is c le ar that C C S is to de te rm ine in the first insta nc e whe the r a

c hild with a disa bility ne e ds m e dic a lly

ne c e ssa ry oc c upation the ra

p y , what is le ss c le ar is whe the r pare n t s who disa gre e with C C S’ s de te rm ination c an se e k re vie w of tha t de c ision in a due proc e ss he aring unde r C a lifornia ’ s im p le m e ntat ion of the Individua ls with Disa

bilitie s Educ a tion Ac t (“ IDEA” ). The De pa rtm e nt of He a lth C are Se rvic e s a

rgue s tha t , be c a use § 7575 a llows only

C C S to de te rm ine what le ve l of the ra

py is m e dic a lly

ne c e ssa ry , re v ie w of tha

t de c ision is like

w ise the pre roga tive of C C S, and a

n Adm inistra

tive La w Judge (“ ALJ” ) pre s iding ove r a due proc e ss he aring la c ks jurisdic tion to re v ie w the que stion. C C S ha s its own
a ppe a l proc e dure by

whic h a pa re nt c an c hoose a doc tor (am ong thre e se le c te d by C C S) to re v ie w C C S’ s initia l m e dic a l ne c e ssity de te rm ination. Se e C a l . C ode R e gs. tit. 22, § 42140.

3While the De pa rtm e nt of He a l th C are Se rvic e s’ s vie w is a re a sona ble one , we are not ultima te ly

pe rsua de d by

it. Se ve ra l provisions of C a l ifornia la w le a d us to c o nc lude tha

t a pa re n t m ay initia te a due proc e ss he aring to se e k re vie w of C C S’ s de te rm ination of m e dic a l ne c e ssity in a c hild’ s IEP. C a l . Gov’ t

C ode § 7572(c )(3) provide s tha t dispute s ove r oc c upationa l the ra py re c om m e ndations by
m e dic a l pe rsonne l a

nd the IEP te am

are to be re solve d in due proc e s s he arings. And C a l. Gov’ t C ode § 7585 provide s tha t pa re nts m ay re que st a due proc e ss he aring to re vie w a

de pa rtm e nt’ s fa ilure to provide a re late d se rvic e re quire d pursua nt to § 7575 a

nd spe c ifie d in the c h ild’ s IEP. C C S is not the re fore be y ond the j urisdic tion of a

n ALJ. W e are a lso pe rsua de d tha t oc c upationa l the ra

py se rvic e s in a

c hild’ s IEP— w he t he r m e d ic a lly

or e duc a tiona lly

ne c e ssa ry
— are “ re late d se rvic e s ” ove r whic h a n ALJ ha s jurisdic tion in a due proc e ss he aring. C a l. Gov’ t C o de § 7586(a ) provide s tha

t a ll sta te de pa rtm e nts a re gove rne d by

the IDEA’ s proc e dura l
sa fe gua rds a nd tha t dispute s ove r “ re late d se rvic e s” are to be re s olve d in due proc e s s he arings. A “re late d se rvic e ” is de fine d to inc lude oc c upationa l the ra py

“ a s m a y b e re quire d to a ssist a

n individual with e xc e ptiona l ne e ds to be ne fit from spe c ia l e duc a tion.” C a l. Educ . C ode § 56363(a); ac c ord 20 U.S.C . § 1401(26)(A). Oc c upationa l the ra

py se rvic e s de e m e d to be m e d ic a lly ne c e ssa ry by C C S are
4ne c e ssa

ry “ to a ssist a

n individual with e xc e ptiona l ne e ds to be ne fit from spe c ia l
e duc a tion,” id. , whe n the y form pa rt of the c hild’ s IEP. The purpose of a n IEP is to se t out m e a sura

ble a c a de m i c goa ls to m e e t the c hild’ s e d uc a tiona l ne e ds a

nd for the c hild to m ake e duc a tiona l progre ss. 20 U.S.C . § 1414(d)(1)(A). If m e d ic a lly
ne c e ssa ry oc c upationa l the ra

p y se rvic e s we re not a l so ne c e s sa ry for a c hild to be ne fit from

spe c i a l e duc a tion, the y

would ne e d not be inc lude d in the c hild’ s IEP. The re fore , oc c upationa l the ra p y se rvic e s, e ve n those that C C S de e m s to be
m e dic a l ly ne c e ssa ry , c o nstitutea

“ re late d se rvic e ” whe n the y form pa rt of a c hild’ s IEP, and the y

are subje c t

to due proc e s s he aring re vie wunde r C a l. Gov’ t C o de § 7586. W e a lso doubt tha

t the C a lifornia

Le g isla ture inte n de d for the De pa rtm e nt of He a lth C a re Se rvic e s to insula

te itse lf from

re v ie w in the s e c a se s by im p le m e nting its own a ppe a l proc e ss to thee xc lusion of a n ALJ’ s jurisdic tion. M ore ove r, while ALJs a re not usua l l y

m e dic a l ly

tra ine d, the y

are trie rs of fa c t c a

pa ble of we ighing
e vide nc e an d re a c hing fa c t ua l c onc lusions. Se e A.I. e x re l. Iapaluc c i v . Distric t of C olmbia , 402 F. Supp. 2d 152, 170 (D.D.C . 2005). B e c a use the m e dic a l ly

ne c e ssa ry oc c upationa l the ra

p y se rvic e s in J.C .’ s IEP
we re ne c e ssa

ry for him to be n e fit from

spe c ia l e duc a tion, theALJ a lso ha d
a uthority to orde r c om

pe nsatory the ra py . Se e R.P. e

x re l . C .P. v . Pre sc ott Unified
5Sc h. Dist. , 631 F.3d 1117, 1125 (9th C ir. 2011). For thesa m e re a son, the ALJ ha d
a uthority to orde r re im

burse m e nt for the inde pe nde nt a sse ssm e nts obta ine d by J.C .’ s pa re nts. Se e C a l. Gov’ t C ode § 7572(c ); C a l. Educ . C ode § 56329(b). 2. J.C .’ s pa

re nts we re a lso e ntitle d to a sta y put orde r. The “ sta

y put” provision of the IDEA provide s tha t, during the

pe nde nc y

of due proc e s s proc e e d ings,

“ unle ss the State or loc a l e duc a tiona l a ge nc y and the pa re nts othe rwise a gre e , the
c hild sha l l re m a in in thethe n-c urre nt e duc a tiona l pla c e m e nt of the c hild.” 20 U.S.C . § 1415(j); se e also 34 C .F.R . § 300.518(a). If “ a State re vie woffic ia l in a n
a dm inistra

tive a ppe a l a gre e s with thec hild’ s pa re nts tha t a c ha nge of pla c e m e nt is
a ppropria te , tha t pla c e m e nt m

ust be tre at e d a s a

n a gre e m e nt be twe e n the State and the p are nts” for purpose s of the sta y put provision. 34 C .F.R . § 300.518(d); se e also S c h. C omm. of Burlington v

. De p’t of Educ . of Mass. , 471 U.S. 359, 370 (1985); C lov is Unifie d Sc h. Dist. v . C al. Offic e of Admin. He arings , 903 F.2d 635, 641 (9th C i r. 1990). He re , the ALJ’ s de te rm i nation tha t J.C . wa s e ntitle d to m ore
oc c upationa l the ra

py se rvic e s c onstitute s a

n a gre e m e nt be twe e n the State and the pa re nts a n d is subje c t to a

sta y put orde r. The pa

re nts’ sta y put m otion wa s dire c te d at the prope r party be c a use the De p artm e nt of He a lth C are Se rvic e s, through C C S, wa s re sponsiblefor providing the inc re a se d se rvic e s unde r the ALJ’ s orde r.
63. B e c a

use we a gre e with J.C .’ s pa re nts tha t the ALJ’ s orde r m

ust be e nforc e d,
we hold tha

t the y are e ntitle d to a

ttorne y ’ s fe e s unde r the IDEA. J.C .’ s pa re nts sought to enforc e the ALJ’ s orde r, and the y have the re fore pre va i le d on a signific ant issuetha

t a c hie ve s som e of the be ne fit the y sought in bringing this suit. Se e 20 U.S.C . § 1415(i)(3)(B )(i)(I); Me ridian J oint Sc h. Dist. N

o. 2 v . D.A. , 792 F.3d 1054, 1064-65 (9th C ir. 2015). W e the re fore re m and for the distric t c ourt to
c a lc ulat e and a

ward attorne y ’ s fe e s. Se e V.S. e x re l . A.O. v . Los Gatos-Saratoga J oint Union High Sc

h. Dist. , 484 F.3d 1230, 1234–35 (9th C i r. 2007). Fina lly , we a c knowle dge tha t this c a se pre se nts a

c om ple x, c ha lle nging issue of first im pre ssion unde r C a lifornia la w. A c a se pre se nting a

sim ila r issue is
c urre ntly pe nding be fore the C a lifornia C o urt of Appe a l. Se e C

al. De p ’t of He alth C areSe rv s. v . Dire c tor, C

al. Offic e of Admin. He arings (“Tuolumne ”) , No. F071023. Ordina

rily , we m ight c onside r de fe rring subm i ssion or c e rtify i ng the que stion to the

C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt. Howe ve r, we de c ide the c a se in the inte re s t of judic ia l e xpe die nc y and J.C .’ s ne e d for re solution. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

7