Edu-Hi

Department of Education v. Patrick P.

Good Law
609 F. App'x 509
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 14, 201513-16123California810 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Defendants-Appellants Patrick P., Gor-dean L.-W., and Thomas W. (Patrick’s mother and step-father, respectively) appeal the district court’s reversal of the Administrative Hearing Officer’s (“AHO”) decision. The AHO had concluded that Patrick was eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1450 . Patrick challenges the district court’s decision in two ways. First, Patrick alleges that the district court did not provide the AHO with the appropriate level of deference. Second, Patrick contends that the district court erred by determining that Patrick was not eligible for special education benefits under the IDEA. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

1. When a district court reviews an AHO’s determination concerning a student’s eligibility under the IDEA, the district court is to “read the administrative record, consider the new evidence, and make an independent judgment based on a preponderance of evidence and giving due weight to the hearing officer’s determinations.” Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. v. Wartenberg, 59 F.3d 884 , 892 (9th Cir.1995). To give “due weight,” the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.