D.K. Ex Rel. Stephen K. v. Abington School District
696 F.3d 233, 88 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 693, 2012 WL 4829193 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statutory exceptions to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) two-year statute of limitations only apply if a parent can prove the school district 1) made intentional or knowing misrepresentations that it had resolved the student's problem, or 2) withheld information specifically mandated by statute, and that this conduct caused the parent's failure to file a timely complaint.
Facts:
- Beginning in kindergarten in 2003, a student, D.K., struggled with reading and exhibited significant behavioral problems, including frequent temper tantrums, leading the Abington School District to recommend he repeat the grade.
- Throughout his second year of kindergarten and into first grade (2004-2005), D.K. showed some academic proficiency but his behavioral issues persisted. Teachers implemented informal behavior plans and held multiple conferences with D.K.'s parents.
- During a December 2005 conference, D.K.'s first-grade teacher opined that it was "too soon to discuss testing (because he [was] not failing), that might be an option down the road."
- In January 2006, D.K.'s parents formally requested an evaluation.
- The School District conducted its first evaluation of D.K. in April 2006, concluding he was not in need of special education services, a result his parents approved at the time.
- During second grade (2006-2007), D.K. began seeing a private therapist who informed the school she was "extremely convinced" he needed special placement. His father also notified the school of an outside diagnosis of "auditory processing" and "sensory stimulation" problems.
- In July 2007, D.K.'s parents requested a second evaluation. A private pediatric neurologist subsequently diagnosed D.K. with ADHD in September 2007.
- In November 2007, the School District's second evaluation determined that D.K. was eligible for special education services, and he was offered an Individualized Education Program (IEP).
Procedural Posture:
- On January 8, 2008, D.K.'s parents requested a due process hearing with the state educational agency.
- A state agency hearing officer denied the parents' claims.
- The parents appealed to a state agency appeals panel, which affirmed the hearing officer's decision.
- The parents (Plaintiffs) sought review by filing a lawsuit against the Abington School District (Defendant) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The District Court affirmed the state agency's decision, granting judgment in favor of the School District.
- The parents (Plaintiffs-Appellants) appealed the District Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the statutory exceptions to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) statute of limitations apply to toll the two-year filing period when a school district makes optimistic but not intentionally deceptive statements about a student's progress and does not provide evaluation forms before a parent explicitly requests them?
Opinions:
Majority - Hardiman, J.
No, the statutory exceptions to the IDEA statute of limitations do not apply. For the 'specific misrepresentation' exception to apply, parents must show the school intentionally or knowingly misled them that a problem was resolved; mere optimism or incorrect assessments are insufficient. For the 'withholding of information' exception to apply, the school must have failed to provide a notice or form that was specifically mandated by the IDEA statute, which was not the case here as the school had no duty to provide evaluation forms before the parents requested one. Furthermore, common law equitable tolling doctrines do not apply because Congress provided specific, exclusive exceptions in the statute. On the merits of the underlying claim, the School District did not violate its 'Child Find' duty, as it was reasonable to monitor D.K.'s development before concluding his issues stemmed from a disability, especially given that such behaviors are not atypical in young children. The District provided substantial support and accommodations, thereby fulfilling its duty to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent by being the first U.S. Court of Appeals decision to interpret the scope of the IDEA's statutory exceptions to its statute of limitations. The court sets a high bar for parents, requiring proof of intentional or knowing deception by a school district to toll the limitations period. This ruling narrows the ability of parents to bring claims for past educational deprivations, protecting schools from stale claims that arise from good-faith, albeit potentially mistaken, educational judgments. The decision emphasizes that the statutory exceptions are exclusive and cannot be supplemented by common law equitable tolling, solidifying the two-year window for most IDEA claims.
