Court Opinion

ID: 9489305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:11:29.027941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:26.972805
License: Public Domain

RYAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The majority opinion concludes that Daniel Payne is not a prevailing party. However, in my judgment, plaintiff raised genuine issues of material fact with regard to this issue; summary judgment should not have been granted. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
*401I.
The majority omits many of the facts that support plaintiffs claim and concludes that no dispute existed because the school “never took a position contrary to that of Payne”; the school “acknowledged its responsibility for Payne’s education”; and the school had embarked on the multidisciplinary team meeting process before Payne requested a due process hearing. Without a dispute, and a resolution of that dispute to the benefit of the plaintiff, the majority reasons, the plaintiff cannot be said to have “prevailed.”
II.
In deciding that there was no dispute between the parties, the majority places a great deal of weight on the fact that “the multidisciplinary team meeting process was under way before Payne [obtained counsel and] requested a due process hearing.” However, there is no evidence in the record that this meeting was likely to result in a more beneficial program than had any of the numerous prior meetings in the years when Payne was not represented by an attorney. Although the majority opinion states that “the school system appeared to be making every effort to fulfill its [statutory] obligations to Payne,” a reasonable jury might well conclude, based on evidence of the school’s past conduct, that the school system had taken “a position contrary to Payne,” that the school was only “going through the motions” before Payne requested a due process hearing. The majority ignores the abundant evidence that the defendant school dragged its feet for years and, contrary to law, provided entirely inadequate educational services to the plaintiff. It was not until the mother of the handicapped child finally obtained counsel, who conducted months of negotiations over the appropriate content of the IEP, that the school got serious about addressing Payne’s handicap.
There is evidence in the record that Payne’s educational problems in the defendant school system were reported by a teacher in February of 1986 but that evaluation of Payne did not begin until April of that year. Although the 1986 psychological evaluations of Payne indicated that his learning and behavioral problems were characteristic of emotional disturbance or a behavior disorder, the record does not indicate that the school performed any further testing in these areas, called for a multidisciplinary team meeting (M-team meeting), devised an individualized education plan (IEP) for Payne, otherwise took any action to address Payne’s handicap and special needs, or even fulfilled its statutory obligation to inform Payne’s parents of his statutory rights. Payne continued to exhibit serious behavioral problems at the school for the next several years and was eventually placed in a psychiatric unit from February through June of 1990. One of Payne’s doctors recommended that a meeting — in which the doctor and a behavior management consultant should participate — be called immediately to discuss plaintiffs educational needs and to develop an appropriate IEP. The doctor identified plaintiffs specific learning problems and made suggestions for accommodating plaintiffs special needs. However, when the school finally held an M-team meeting and devised an IEP for plaintiff in August of 1990, the school apparently did not include in the planning process any of the professionals who had treated Payne during his hospital stay, nor did the school adopt any of the doctor’s suggestions. In fact, neither this IEP nor subsequent IEPs provided specific accommodations for Payne’s handicap; rather, the IEPs summarize Payne’s (poor) academic and behavioral performance, note his delayed social skills, articulate developmental “goals” for Payne, but provide no significant means of assisting Payne in accomplishing these goals — no special services, outside consultations, or individualized programming of any significance at all. Although Payne’s academic, behavioral, and social performance continued at an unacceptable level far below his evaluated potential, the school did not adjust its approach in order to enable the handicapped child to obtain any educational benefit from the school programs.
Short-term placements in psychiatric or disciplinary programs interrupted Payne’s attendance in the defendant school. After one such placement, Payne’s mother sought, in December of 1992, to reenroll him in the defendant school. The school denied plaintiff *402any educational services for a month and then placed him, with his mother’s agreement, on one hour of homebound educational services per week while the school discussed the impact of a juvenile judge’s order barring Payne from the school. In late January 1993, Payne and his family, along with school officials, appeared in juvenile court. Without notifying Payne or his family beforehand, the school officials endorsed in court a recommendation that Payne never be placed in a normal school again but that he be sent to a wilderness camp. The judge adjourned the hearing and instructed the mother to obtain a lawyer, which she did in order to prevent her son’s exclusion from the school and placement in a wilderness camp. The mother’s lawyer mailed a request for a due process hearing to the defendant “to determine whether [plaintiff] is receiving a free and appropriate public education.” The mother had Payne evaluated at the Menninger Clinic and then demanded implementation of the resulting recommendations. Months of negotiations then took place.
Because the parties appeared to be making progress toward an appropriate IEP, the mother agreed to postponing, and eventually dropping altogether, the due process hearing-request. It is the mother’s position that prior to the involvement of the attorneys, there was “nothing to indicate that a [M-team] meeting would result in anything different for [plaintiff] from past IEPs, but that the Defendant would attempt to place the M-team’s stamp of approval on Defendant’s demand that the judge send [Payne] away. For example, there were no professionals with sophisticated knowledge about plaintiffs problems” participating in the M-team meeting that was scheduled prior to the due process hearing request.
There were a number of points of contention between the parties and a number of obstacles were overcome before an appropriate IEP was agreed upon and the due process hearing request dismissed. It appears that the mother “insisted that any settlement must include critical elements of the Men-ninger Clinic staffs recommendations and must include defendant’s agreement to use at least one Menninger staff person as a consultant.” Payne’s mother also “insisted that the Defendant provide [Payne] with the services of a clinical psychologist bi-weekly.” Payne’s mother wanted, and the defendant opposed, an IEP that included requiring the defendant to keep, and review daily, behavioral records and to use in-service training from Wilson Anderson of the Menninger Clinic. At the early stage of negotiations, the defendant school still recommended that Payne go to Cumberland Hall Psychiatric Institute’s day school program, to which Payne’s mother objected. At the September 7,1993, M-team meeting, Payne’s attorney stated that the due process hearing would have to go forward if the defendant would offer no more than an isolated day program at Cumberland Hall Psychiatric Institute’s school. According to Payne’s mother, the defendant then produced another temporary IEP — one that incorporated some of the Menninger recommendations.
On September 30, 1993, Payne’s mother reportedly agreed to another continuation of a due process hearing “on the condition that the Defendant agree to use a Menninger designed daily behavioral check list and incorporate them into [plaintiffs] IEP. The Defendant inserted goals incorporating these check lists.” During October, Payne’s mother and attorneys continued to “insist that the Defendant build into the program the ability to fine tune the program and make changes daily, depending upon [Payne’s] response to the program.” According to her affidavit, Payne’s mother signed the final IEP only after the defendant agreed to hire a consultant to provide counseling to the handicapped child twice a week and to make appropriate changes in the IEP — in collaboration with Payne’s parents — to accommodate Payne’s actual response to the program. Under pressure from the mother and her attorneys, defendant designated an assistant special education supervisor to meet with Payne and review Payne’s behavioral check list each day; agreed to consult with Wilson Anderson of the Menninger Clinic on a regular basis; agreed to pay for regular consultations between Payne, his family, and Mr. Anderson; and agreed to simplify and modify behavioral rules for Payne and allow Wilson Anderson to decide which behavior rules and punish*403ments should apply to Payne. The IEP also required review and revision within 90 days to make adjustments in the program. Finally, the parties agreed that if the program failed, a special day school, not a wilderness program, would be the fail-back option. Only after these agreements were made did plaintiff drop the demand for a due process hearing.
III.
The majority apparently disagrees with this circuit’s determination that IDEA allows attorney’s fees for a parent or guardian who has “prevailed” at the administrative level; the opinion states that a “commonsensical” reading of the statute would indicate that a party whose administrative claim is resolved without an administrative or court determination of the merits cannot recover attorney’s fees. The Act allows attorney fee awards for prevailing parties “[i]n any action or proceeding brought under this subsection.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B) (emphasis added). This court has held that attorney’s fees are available to plaintiffs who are successful at an administrative proceeding. Eggers v. Bullitt County School Dist., 854 F.2d 892 (6th Cir.1988). Eggers established the rule in the Sixth Circuit and is binding; whether there is a “semantic strain” in the Eggers interpretation is unimportant at this point.
Thus, the law in this circuit is that attorney’s fees are available to plaintiffs successful in an administrative proceeding even where no other litigation was necessary to enforce or challenge an administrative decision. Eggers v. Bullitt County School Dist., 854 F.2d 892 (6th Cir.1988). Because the Sixth Circuit equates administrative proceedings with court actions, the analogous 42 U.S.C. § 1988 definition of prevailing party, see Krichinsky v. Knox County Schools, 963 F.2d 847, 849 (6th Cir.1992), should be imported to assess an IDEA plaintiffs success at the administrative hearing level even if the plaintiff does not proceed to the court litigation level. The most obvious parallel to an award of attorney fees in a civil rights action resolved by a consent decree or settlement beneficial to the plaintiff is an award of attorney fees in an IDEA dispute resolved by negotiating to an IEP beneficial to the plaintiff.
“Prevailing party” is generously defined because qualification for that status is a mere threshold issue and does not guarantee any significant award. As the majority states, to qualify as a prevailing party a plaintiff must “obtain an enforceable judgment against the defendant from whom fees are sought, or comparable relief through a consent decree or settlement.” Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 113 S.Ct. 566, 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992) (emphasis added). However, relief under IDEA was not at issue in Farrar and because “prevailing party” standards are imported from the civil rights litigation context into the IDEA context, the language of Farrar should be translated into the IDEA context. A final IEP, achieved after initiation but before resolution of an IDEA administrative hearing, is the equivalent of “comparable relief through a consent decree or settlement” achieved after initiation but before resolution of a civil rights court action. The plaintiff in this case established at least a genuine issue of material fact that the final IEP was beneficial and was a negotiated “settlement” of the parties’ dispute.
The plaintiff also established a genuine issue of material fact that his mother’s initiation of a due process hearing and use of attorneys was the catalyst for the improved IEP finally achieved. As the majority opinion states, the catalyst test dictates that a party has prevailed if, “as a matter of fact, the plaintiffs lawsuit was a necessary and important factor in achieving the relief desired,” if the plaintiffs lawsuit “caused the defendant to act.” The history of the tug-of-war between Payne and the school system, as set forth in affidavits, and the undisputed chronology of events establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the cause of the form or quality of the final IEP. I do not disagree with the majority that the process to write an IEP was underway prior to initiation of the due process hearing procedures; however, the content of the IEP was very much in dispute, and an IEP containing substantive provisions beneficial to the plaintiff that the defendants never proposed is what *404the child’s mother and her attorneys “won.” The investigatory work and pressure brought to bear on the noncompliant school by the plaintiffs attorney should not go uncompensated. Congress provided for attorney fee awards in order to encourage plaintiffs to assert their right to a free and appropriate education and to encourage attorneys to represent these plaintiffs and thereby ensure enforcement of the statute.
If the lawsuit did cause the defendant to act, the second inquiry is whether the relief obtained resulted from a gratuitous act of the defendant or whether the defendant’s actions were legally required. Again, although the majority does not reach this question, it is readily apparent that many or most of the concessions achieved by the plaintiff were required by law. Until this admirably tenacious mother sought legal assistance, the plaintiff was not receiving the “free and appropriate” education that the school system was required by law to provide to him.
IV.
I would reverse the district court’s judgment.