District Must Fund OT and Autism IEEs After Flawed Assessments of Preschooler with Autism

Capistrano Unified School District filed for due process to defend its July 2005 assessments of a three-year-old boy with autism who was transitioning from regional center services. The ALJ found the district's occupational therapy assessment was riddled with procedural errors and that the district failed to conduct any autism specialist assessment at all — only an informal observation. The family was awarded independent educational evaluations in both OT and autism at public expense, while the district's psycho-educational and speech-language assessments were upheld.

What Happened

A three-year-old boy with autism was transitioning from Orange County Regional Center infant services to Capistrano Unified School District's preschool program. In June 2005, the district and the family agreed on an assessment plan covering five areas: psycho-educational, speech and language, occupational therapy, health/nursing, and a dedicated autism specialist assessment. The district completed its evaluations in July 2005 and held an IEP meeting on July 22, 2005. The family received the reports only two to three days before the meeting and quickly identified serious concerns — most critically, that no written autism specialist report had ever been produced, and that the occupational therapy assessment appeared to be full of errors and omissions.

In August 2005, the family formally requested independent educational evaluations (IEEs) at public expense across all assessed areas. Rather than fund the IEEs, the district filed for a due process hearing in September 2005 to defend its assessments. A five-day hearing was held in May 2006. The ALJ ultimately ruled that two of the four contested assessments — occupational therapy and autism — were inadequate, entitling the family to publicly funded IEEs in those areas. The psycho-educational and speech-language assessments were found to be appropriate despite some procedural imperfections.

What the ALJ Found

1. Occupational Therapy Assessment — INADEQUATE The OT who conducted the evaluation, Nicole Sadauski, did not have her occupational therapy license at the time of the assessment (it was still pending). She did not testify at the hearing, so her supervisor had to defend the report without firsthand knowledge of what actually happened during testing. The Sensory Profile test was administered improperly: many required questions were left blank, the test forms were missing identifying information, and the protocol was marked with unexplained "X" marks. Publisher instructions required the assessor to discuss blank answers with parents — this never happened. The report also failed to directly address gross motor skills, praxis, and self-regulation, which are core areas of OT assessment and were clearly relevant to this child. The ALJ found the errors significantly undermined the reliability of the assessment.

2. Autism Specialist Assessment — NOT CONDUCTED The assessment plan explicitly required a formal assessment by an autism specialist. What actually happened was that the autism specialist spent approximately 30 minutes observing the student, verbally shared her impressions with colleagues, took no written notes, and produced no written report. The district argued this "observation" satisfied the requirement. The ALJ disagreed, crediting the mother's testimony that a full assessment — not just an observation — was what was agreed upon at the planning meeting, a position supported by the written assessment plan itself.

3. Psycho-Educational Assessment — APPROPRIATE The district's school psychologist made several procedural errors, including using shorthand on standardized test forms, leaving protocol pages incomplete, and scoring one test incorrectly (reporting the student could identify 11 colors when testing showed he could identify none). However, the ALJ found these were minor errors that did not affect the validity of the overall results and credited the psychologist's credibility. The family's expert was not persuasive in explaining how the errors changed the outcomes.

4. Speech and Language Assessment — APPROPRIATE The district's SLP assessed the student over multiple sessions using appropriate standardized tools. The family's expert argued the SLP should have diagnosed verbal apraxia. The ALJ found this was simply a difference in professional judgment — the SLP appropriately monitored for apraxia rather than diagnosing it prematurely — and ruled the assessment was adequate.

What Was Ordered

The family is not entitled to a publicly funded independent psycho-educational assessment.
The family is not entitled to a publicly funded independent speech and language assessment.
The family is entitled to an independent occupational therapy evaluation at public expense.
The family is entitled to an independent autism specialist evaluation at public expense.

Why This Matters for Parents

Read the assessment plan carefully and hold the district to it. The written assessment plan is a contract. In this case, it clearly listed an "autism specialist assessment" — not just an observation. When the district delivered only a brief verbal observation with no written report, the family had grounds to demand an IEE. If your child's assessment plan lists a specific type of evaluation, make sure you receive a written report for every item on that list.
You have the right to an IEE when an assessment is flawed — even if the overall picture seems close. Parents don't have to prove the district's errors changed the diagnosis. The ALJ here found that the OT assessment was unreliable because testing procedures weren't followed and key areas weren't addressed — that alone was enough. You don't need a smoking gun; significant procedural failures can be sufficient.
Ask who conducted each assessment and verify their credentials. In this case, the OT who performed the evaluation did not hold a valid license on the dates she tested the child. You have the right to ask about the qualifications of every person who assesses your child.
Request that the assessors themselves attend the IEP meeting or hearing. The district's OT case was severely weakened because the assessor who actually did the testing never testified. Her supervisor had to guess about what happened during the evaluation. If critical questions arise about a report, the person who wrote it should be the one answering them.
Minor errors don't automatically win an IEE — context matters. The psycho-educational assessor also made mistakes, but the ALJ found they didn't affect results. When raising assessment concerns, focus on errors that impacted the conclusions or left important questions unanswered, not just technical paperwork imperfections.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The family is not entitled to a publicly funded independent psycho-educational assessment.
The family is not entitled to a publicly funded independent speech and language assessment.
The family is entitled to an independent occupational therapy evaluation at public expense.
The family is entitled to an independent autism specialist evaluation at public expense.

Why This Matters for Parents

Read the assessment plan carefully and hold the district to it. The written assessment plan is a contract. In this case, it clearly listed an "autism specialist assessment" — not just an observation. When the district delivered only a brief verbal observation with no written report, the family had grounds to demand an IEE. If your child's assessment plan lists a specific type of evaluation, make sure you receive a written report for every item on that list.
You have the right to an IEE when an assessment is flawed — even if the overall picture seems close. Parents don't have to prove the district's errors changed the diagnosis. The ALJ here found that the OT assessment was unreliable because testing procedures weren't followed and key areas weren't addressed — that alone was enough. You don't need a smoking gun; significant procedural failures can be sufficient.
Ask who conducted each assessment and verify their credentials. In this case, the OT who performed the evaluation did not hold a valid license on the dates she tested the child. You have the right to ask about the qualifications of every person who assesses your child.
Request that the assessors themselves attend the IEP meeting or hearing. The district's OT case was severely weakened because the assessor who actually did the testing never testified. Her supervisor had to guess about what happened during the evaluation. If critical questions arise about a report, the person who wrote it should be the one answering them.
Minor errors don't automatically win an IEE — context matters. The psycho-educational assessor also made mistakes, but the ALJ found they didn't affect results. When raising assessment concerns, focus on errors that impacted the conclusions or left important questions unanswered, not just technical paperwork imperfections.