Recently, several court decisions have drastically effected how special education due
process hearings are handled. Below are brief synopses of some of these milestone
cases:
Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 526 (D.C.. Cir. 2005)
- In this case the DC Circuit held that compensatory education awards must be
decided on a fact-specific basis and, to accomplish IDEIA’s purposes, the
ultimate award must be reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits
that likely would have accrued from special education services the school
district should have supplied in the first place. However, whereas ordinary IEPs
need only provide “some benefit,” compensatory awards must do more—they
must compensate.
Schaefer v, Weist
- The Supreme Court held in this case that the burden of proof is on the party that
brings the action—which is usually the parents. The Court reasoned that while
school districts have a “natural advantage” in information and expertise,
Congress addressed this when it obliged schools to safeguard the procedural
rights of parents and to share information with them. Furthermore, the Court
relied on the fact that a parent has the right to an independent educational
evaluation at public expense if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained
by the public agency, so IDEA ensures parents access to an expert who can
give an independent opinion. Finally, prior to a hearing, the parties must disclose
evaluations and recommendations that they intend to rely upon and parents may
recover attorney’s fees if they prevail.
Arlington Central School District v. Murphy
- Most recently, the Supreme Court ruled that prevailing parents may not recover
the costs of experts or consultants relied upon in due process hearings. A cost-
or fee-shifting provision, held the Court, will not be read to permit recovery of
expert fees without explicit statutory authority. While IDEIA provides for an
award of “reasonable attorneys’ fees,” the Court found it does not make a State
responsible for reimbursing prevailing parents for the services of experts.
Furthermore, “costs” is a term of art that does not generally include expert fees.
|
