Opinion ID: 2452988
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Superior Court Applied The Correct Standard Of Review To The Independent Hearing Officer's Decision.

Text: J.P. and L.P. argued that the superior court should not review the hearing officer's decision de novo, but should instead rely on special standards of review required by the IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A) and (C) of the IDEA state that any party aggrieved by the findings and decision made [by a hearing officer] ... shall have the right to bring a civil action and that in such a civil action the reviewing court shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings;... hear additional evidence at the request of a party; and ... basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, ... grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate. [23] The United States Supreme Court has held that the requirement that the reviewing court receive records of the administrative proceedings carries with it the implied requirement that due weight shall be given to these proceedings. [24] On appeal to this court, J.P. and L.P. again assert that the superior court was obligated to apply the standard of review set out in the IDEA. Other courts have confirmed that trial courts should review an administrative decision issued under the IDEA with the deference implied by the statute's language. [25] But, with regard to conclusions of law, these and other decisions equate the IDEA's due weight standard with pure de novo review. [26] The question in this appeal is clearly one of law: were P.P.'s parents entitled to reimbursement of evaluation and tutoring costs under the IDEA given that P.P. was ultimately deemed ineligible for special education services? The superior court correctly recognized that neither party disputes the hearing officer's factual findings and therefore had no occasion to apply the IDEA's modified de novo standard for reviewing questions of fact. The superior court correctly applied the de novo standard of review to the hearing officer's conclusions of law. Contrary to the argument raised by J.P. and L.P., application of the de novo standard of review does not impermissibly limit the authority of the hearing officer; the superior court was free to independently analyze the legal issues presented by this appeal without deferring to the hearing officer's decision.