Opinion ID: 77291
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: School District's Right to Reevaluate M.T.V.

Text: 19 Appellants also argue the district court erred in affirming the ALJ's order requiring them to consent to the School District's request to reevaluate M.T.V by an expert of its choice, or else forfeit his OHI services. 5 In light of the IDEA's strict reevaluation requirements, we conclude the district court committed no error in granting the School District a judgment on the record. 20 Before a child with a disability may begin receiving services under the IDEA, [a] State educational agency, other State agency, or local educational agency shall conduct a full and individual initial evaluation. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(A). Subsequent evaluations must be conducted if conditions warrant a reevaluation or if the child's parent or teacher requests a reevaluation, but at least once every 3 years. Id. § 1414(a)(2)(A). 21 Every court to consider the IDEA's reevaluation requirements has concluded [i]f a student's parents want him to receive special education under IDEA, they must allow the school itself to reevaluate the student and they cannot force the school to rely solely on an independent evaluation. Andress v. Cleveland Indep. Sch. Dist., 64 F.3d 176, 178-79 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Johnson by Johnson v. Duneland Sch. Corp., 92 F.3d 554, 558 (7th Cir.1996) ([B]ecause the school is required to provide the child with an education, it ought to have the right to conduct its own evaluation.); Gregory K. v. Longview Sch. Dist., 811 F.2d 1307, 1315 (9th Cir.1987) (holding parents must permit mandatory reassessments under the Education of the Handicapped Act, the IDEA's predecessor, if they want their child to receive special education services); Dubois v. Conn. State Bd. of Ed., 727 F.2d 44, 48 (2d Cir.1984) (same). 22 We agree with these courts and hold the School District was entitled to reevaluate M.T.V. by an expert of its choice. M.T.V. was initially deemed eligible for OHI services in August 1999, making his triennial evaluation for continued OHI eligibility due in 2002. Conditions also warranted a reevaluation because M.T.V. had made significant progress on his OHI goals. Finally, the School District had a right to condition M.T.V.'s continued OHI services on a reevaluation by an expert of its choice because M.T.V.'s initial OHI-eligibility was based primarily on evaluations provided by his parents. We agree the school cannot be forced to rely solely on an independent evaluation conducted at the parents' behest. Johnson, 92 F.3d at 558. 6 Accordingly, the district court did not err in affirming the ALJ's order requiring M.T.V. to submit to the School District's reevaluation in order to remain eligible for OHI services.