Opinion ID: 3010241
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court Hearing

Text: M.C. and G.C. appealed the ALJ's decision to federal district court. The court agreed with the ALJ's conclusions that J.C.'s achievements appeared to be de minimis as well as inconsistent and scattered, and that in some areas J.C. had even regressed. However, the court could not determine, based on the evidence presented at the administrative hearing, whether J.C.'s inadequate progress was a reflection of his (lack of) potential or of the inappropriateness of his placement at OCDTC. Accordingly, it convened a hearing to receive supplemental evidence. In the wake of this hearing, the district court reversed the decision of the ALJ and ordered residential 6 placement. The district court concluded that the ALJ had applied the wrong legal standard in reaching his determination. The ALJ had relied on the Rowley formulation that a disabled child need only receive some educational benefit from his instruction. However, according to the district court, the ALJ failed to consider our cases interpreting that decision. See Polk v. Cent. Susquehana Intermediate Unit 16, 853 F.2d 171 (3d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1030 (1989); Bd. of Educ. v. Diamond, 808 F.2d 987 (3d Cir. 1986). Both Polk and Diamond make clear that an appropriate IEP must result in more than de minimis benefits to satisfy Rowley's some educational benefit standard. As we wrote in Diamond, a plan for a severely handicapped student will satisfy the IDEA only if it is likely to produce progress, not regression or trivial educational advancement. Id. at 991. According to the district court, the limited and varied progress that the ALJ found was de minimis and therefore not sufficient to satisfy IDEA. In determining that residential placement was appropriate for J.C., the court credited the testimony of the plaintiff's expert, Dr. Dana Henning.2 According to Dr. Henning, J.C.'s IEP did not sufficiently address his needs. She testified that J.C. was capable of more than the de minimis results he had realized at OCDTC, but that he needed the intensive, round-the- 2 Dr. Henning has eighteen years of experience in teaching, assessing, evaluating and making educational recommendations for persons with severe or profound handicaps and challenging behaviors. She estimated that she had evaluated close to a thousand severely and profoundly retarded children, one-third of whom had self-stimulatory behavior problems. 7 clock instruction of a residential school to receive meaningful benefit from his education. Central Regional now appeals the residential placement order. We review the district court's legal standard de novo and its factual findings for clear error. The district court denied the plaintiffs' request for compensatory education, and plaintiffs now appeal that determination. At issue is the legal standard used by the court, over which we exercise de novo review.