Opinion ID: 1463318
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prevailing on an Eligibility Category Determination Alters the Legal Relationship Between the Parties

Text: The district court correctly determined that IDEA does not give a student the legal right to a proper disability classification. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3)(B) (Nothing in [the IDEA] requires that children be classified by their disability so long as each child who has a disability listed in[§ 1401] and who, by reason of that disability, needs special education and related services is regarded as a child with a disability under [the IDEA].). The district court erred, however, in failing to consider the legal ramifications of a change in disability classification. Although the IDEA does not confer a legal right to proper disability classification, legal ramifications do arise from a student's disability classification. For example, special education teachers must possess credentials specific to a child's primary disability. [3] See Cal.Code Regs. Tit. 5, § 80046.5 (Credential holders who are authorized to serve children with disabilities must possess a credential that authorizes teaching the primary disability of the pupils....). Here, it is undisputed that Edward's teacher was qualified to teach children whose primary disabilities included mental retardation and autism. Nevertheless, the question is whether the change in Edward's disability classification altered the legal relationship between the parties. Absent the change in disability classification, Edward did not have a legal right to instruction by a teacher qualified to teach a student with mental retardation and autism. Before his classification was changed, Edward could have been placed under the care and instruction of a teacher who was not qualified to teach a student with autism. We hold that a change in eligibility category materially alters the legal relationship between the parties because it entitles Edward to placement in a classroom with a teacher qualified to teach students with the primary disabilities of mental retardation and autism. Although Edward did, in fact, receive placement in the proper classroom, the school district refused to recognize his additional primary disability of autism, and thus his legal right to such placement, until his eligibility category was changed. Accordingly, we hold that the Weissburgs qualify as prevailing parties under the IDEA and are thereby eligible for attorneys' fees at the discretion of the court.