Opinion ID: 1453516
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Deference to the SEHO decision

Text: Before we reach the merits of R.B.'s IDEA eligibility, we must address appellants' arguments concerning the degree of deference we should give to the SEHO's underlying decision. Appellants argue for no deference because they claim the SEHO omitted or distorted certain pieces of evidence. The District argues for the particular deference that we accord to thorough and careful findings. See Smith, 15 F.3d at 1524. We treat a hearing officer's findings as thorough and careful when the officer participates in the questioning of witnesses and writes a decision contain[ing] a complete factual background as well as a discrete analysis supporting the ultimate conclusions. See Park, 464 F.3d at 1031. Those criteria were satisfied here, as the SEHO asked follow-up questions of many witnesses, included several pages of factual background in the decision, and discretely analyzed all the issues presented for each of the two academic years in question. To this extent, the SEHO's findings deserve particular deference. Therefore, we can summarily dismiss most of appellants' objections as impermissible attempts to second-guess the SEHO's characterization and weighing of the evidence. We find no reason for according less deference to the SEHO's decision because she described R.B.'s misconduct as episodic or labeled the transition to Intermountain a difficult adjustment period. Nor do we quibble with the SEHO's citation to R.B.'s 2002 achievement test scores as evidence that R.B. performed at or above grade level (even though R.B.'s 2001 achievement test scores were even higher) or the failure to compare R.B.'s grades at Donaldson Way Elementary to her grades at Intermountain. [9] We reject appellants' assertion that the SEHO distorted the testimony of Joanna Gardner, the mother of one of R.B.'s friends: the SEHO's conclusions that R.B. spent time with and participated in extracurricular activities with Gardner's daughter were properly drawn from Gardner's testimony. We also refuse to question the SEHO's reliance on the Struven report, which included observations of R.B. in the classroom, rather than the Solomon report, which did not. The SEHO's weighing of the evidence was consistent with the requirement that the IEP team review [c]urrent classroom-based assessments and observations and [o]bservations by teachers and related service providers[.] 34 C.F.R. § 300.533(a)(ii)-(iii) (2003). We are concerned, however, by the SEHO's failure to make any reference in her decision to the testimony of Brandt or Morrison. The absence of discussion is particularly disturbing because the omission of R.B.'s special education teacher/provider from the IEP team was the procedural violation in this case. The testimony of Brandt and Morrison at the due process hearing helped cure the procedural violation, but the SEHO decision's failure to cite any of their testimony conveys the impression that the SEHO did not thoroughly and carefully consider their viewpoints. The district court's decision is better: to support its conclusion that R.B. did not meet the criteria for IDEA eligibility at Intermountain, it cites Morrison's testimony that R.B.'s behavior eventually improved during her year there. Again, however, the district court did not discuss Brandt's testimony, other than mentioning in passing that plaintiffs relied on it. Therefore, in our review of the SEHO's decision, we accord particular deference to the SEHO's thorough and careful findings, except to the extent they do not discuss Brandt's and Morrison's testimony. In other words, we accord deference to the SEHO's finding that R.B. was ineligible for IDEA relief in both school years, although we independently review the testimony in the record that the SEHO failed to consider. Cf. Katherine G. ex rel. Cynthia G. v. Kentfield Sch. Dist., 261 F.Supp.2d 1159, 1175 (N.D.Cal.2003) (deferring to the hearing officer's well-reasoned and well-supported findings and conclusions while independently reviewing the testimony that the hearing officer failed to consider). Because IDEA eligibility determinations are fact-intensive, we review for clear error the district court's acceptance of the SEHO's decision. See Hood, 486 F.3d at 1104. In applying this standard of review, we are mindful that the district court discussed some of the testimony that the SEHO did not.