Opinion ID: 1058222
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Nature of the Underlying Litigation

Text: The trial court held that the action giving rise to the [School] Board's request for coverage is an administrative action for its entirety and, as such, was not a claim as defined by the Risk Management Plan. We disagree. The question whether an action filed in state or federal court pursuant to IDEA, following exhaustion of state administrative procedures, remains an administrative action is a question of first impression for this Court. [3] However, the Fourth Circuit has addressed this precise issue in Kirkpatrick v. Lenoir County Board of Education, 216 F.3d 380, 382 (4th Cir.2000), in which it held, after detailed analysis, that an action brought in federal district court by a party aggrieved by a state administrative agency decision ... is an original civil action. In Kirkpatrick, the Fourth Circuit looked first to the language of the statute. Id. at 383-84. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A) states that any party aggrieved by the findings and decision of the local or state administrative agency shall have the right to bring a civil action with respect to the complaint presented... which action may be brought in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States. Kirkpatrick, 216 F.3d at 384. The Fourth Circuit concluded that while the statute explicitly affords an aggrieved party a right to appeal from the local educational agency to a state review officer ... it explicitly gives an aggrieved party who has exhausted his administrative remedies the right to bring a civil action in federal or state court. Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). In Kirkpatrick, the Fourth Circuit also noted that 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(B)(ii) [4] provides that the state or district court reviewing an action shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party. Id. This procedure stands in contrast to a true appellate court, which is limited by the record developed below. Likewise, reviewing courts under IDEA are not limited to the parameters of the remedies issued by the state administrative agency below. Id. Therefore, rather than simply affirming, reversing, or vacating a decision of a state administrative agency, the reviewing court offers its own independent de novo review and conclusion. Id. While the Fourth Circuit acknowledged that deference is given to the state administrative officer's findings of fact, that deference is merely a recognition that state educational administrative agencies possess a level of expertise and familiarity with educational standards. Id. at 385. Finally, the Fourth Circuit relied on principles of federalism in reaching its conclusion that a proceeding in state or federal court is not an administrative proceeding. In Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923), the United States Supreme Court established that [l]ower federal courts lack jurisdiction to entertain appeals from state court judgments because that power is reserved exclusively to the United States Supreme Court. Kirkpatrick, 216 F.3d at 386. Based on this analysis, we adopt the conclusion reached in Kirkpatrick. The plain language of IDEA labels the review of the administrative process a civil action and the substantive commands of IDEA further support that conclusion. As the court in Kirkpatrick concluded, while a federal district court may review a state review officer's decision and even defer to that decision, the federal district court does not sit as an appellate court. Federal district courts are courts of limited, original jurisdiction with no power to sit as appellate tribunals over state court or administrative proceedings. Federal district courts cannot directly supervise and supplant state administrative action by affirming, reversing, or modifying administrative decisions. Id. at 387. Commencement of an action in a state court rather than in a federal district court does not change the nature of the process employed. In both state and federal court, an action filed pursuant to IDEA is an independent civil action, and not an administrative action. Turning to the facts of this case, the Plan contains very broad coverage language that includes within its ambit causes of action established by law by reason of liability arising out of acts or omissions of any nature.  (Emphasis added.) The local hearing officer determined that Stefan was damaged by the acts and omissions of the staff of the Newport News Public Schools. The action brought by the Jaynes family in District Court was a claim as contemplated by the Plan because it was a demand, suit or legal action and, as discussed above, it was not an administrative hearing[ ] or procedure[ ]. Therefore, under the plain language of the Plan, the action brought by the Jaynes family in District Court was a claim and not excluded on the grounds that it was an administrative action.