Opinion ID: 165934
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: IDEA proceedings do not follow the deferential “substantial evidence” test typical in judicial review of administrative proceedings. Instead, the reviewing court must independently decide whether the IDEA requirements have been met. Murray v. Montrose County Sch. Dist. RE-1J , 51 F.3d 921, 927 (10th Cir. 1995). “The district court must therefore independently review the evidence contained in the administrative record, accept and review additional evidence, if necessary, and make a decision based on the preponderance of the evidence, while giving ‘due weight’ to the administrative proceedings below.” Id. (quotation omitted). This “due weight” standard means that the IHO’s factual findings are considered prima facie correct. L.B. ex rel. K.B. v. Nebo Sch. Dist. , 379 F.3d -6- 966, 974 (10th Cir. 2004). Also, “[t]he district court's proceedings must maintain the character of review and not rise to the level of a de novo trial.” Id. 3 This court reviews the district court’s disposition de novo , applying the same standard that it applied. Id. We do not treat the district court’s summary disposition as a “summary judgment” entered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 standards, however, because the district court did not attempt to determine whether genuine material issues of fact remained for trial. See id. Instead, its disposition was in essence “a judgment on the administrative agency’s record,” leaving us as a reviewing court to conduct what is essentially a de novo review of a final judgment on the merits. Id. Finally, we note that “[t]he district court's [legal] interpretations of the [IDEA] are reviewed de novo .” Id.