Opinion ID: 1355189
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Standards of Judicial Review in IDEA actions

Text: Though Kentucky regulations provide that a decision of the ECAB may be appealed to either state circuit or federal district court, the regulation is silent as to the type of review to be conducted by this initial reviewing court. Corresponding federal regulation, however, is more detailed: IDEA requires that this initial reviewing court (whether federal or state) review the records of the administrative proceedings, hear additional evidence if requested by a party, and base its decision on the preponderance of the evidence. [12] The Fayette Circuit Court in this matter conducted its review pursuant to KRS 13B.150, and relied on the long line of Kentucky cases stating that circuit courts review decisions of administrative agencies to determine whether they were supported by substantial evidence. [13] Though the FCBE had previously raised the issue of whether the federal standard of review as set forth in 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(B) was inconsistent with the type of judicial review required by Kentucky law, that claim was abandoned and is not now before us for determination. What remains as the primary issue for our consideration is whether the Court of Appeals applied the correct standard of review in considering M.R.D.'s appeal. At the outset of its opinion, the Court of Appeals states that it is required to review the case pursuant to a modified de novo review of the entire administrative record. Citing Renner v. Schools of Ann Arbor, [14] the Court of Appeals explains that it must independently re-examine the evidence to determine whether the administrative determination and the circuit court decision affirming it were correct. The Court of Appeals' reliance on Renner for the correct standard of judicial appellate review in IDEA actions is misplaced. As explained above, IDEA requires that the initial reviewing court review the records of the administrative proceedings, hear additional evidence if requested by a party, and base its decision on the preponderance of the evidence. [15] It is this standard of review that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bd. of Ed. Hendrick Hudson Dist. v. Rowley , interpreted as a modified de novo review. [16] Rowley and its progeny make clear that the modified de novo review is to be conducted by the initial reviewing court in IDEA actions. [17] The Court of Appeals in this matter, however, is not the initial reviewing court  the Fayette Circuit Court was the initial reviewing court. The IDEA is silent as to the manner of judicial review to be conducted at the appellate level, and we must therefore look to prevailing state law on the matter. CR 52.01 requires that, in appeals of administrative agency decisions, appellate courts review the determinations of the circuit courts for clear error. [18] It should be noted that the federal appellate courts apply the same standard of review in IDEA actions: in reviewing a district court's ruling in an IDEA action, a clearly erroneous standard of review is applied to findings of fact, while conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. [19] Thus, the Court of Appeals erred in conducting a modified de novo review of the decision of the Fayette Circuit Court in this matter. The Court of Appeals should have reviewed the lower court's findings of fact only for clear error pursuant to CR 52.01 and reviewed its conclusions of law de novo.