District Must Assess Auditory Processing When ADHD and Parent Request Put It in Play

A Buena Park Elementary School District student with ADHD and learning disabilities was not assessed for auditory processing disorder despite his mother's written request and the known connection between ADHD and auditory processing deficits. The ALJ found this failure violated the district's obligation to assess in all areas of suspected disability, denied the student a FAPE for part of the 2003-2004 school year, and ordered the district to reimburse the cost of the private audiology assessment that identified the disorder. The student did not receive compensatory education because his attorneys failed to present evidence of specific educational harm.

What Happened

Student is a boy who attended Buena Park Elementary School District through sixth grade. He had a history of behavioral problems and inconsistent academic performance stretching back to third grade, but his teachers were generally able to manage his behavior and he continued to advance with his class. In November 2003, during fifth grade, Student's mother wrote to the district requesting a special education assessment in all areas of suspected disability — explicitly naming auditory processing as one of those areas. The district began assessing Student in January 2004 and determined he was eligible for special education under "other health impaired" due to an ADHD diagnosis. However, the district's speech-language specialist concluded Student's skills were within normal limits and stopped there — no licensed audiologist evaluated Student for auditory processing disorder (APD).

Parent hired a private audiologist, who diagnosed Student with APD affecting his ability to follow directions, take notes, filter background noise, and remember sequential information. Parent also hired a private educational psychologist and assistive technology specialist. The IEP team eventually incorporated the audiologist's recommendations into Student's program, but only after a long delay. Parent filed for due process in April 2004, arguing the district failed its child-find duty, assessed Student inadequately, and denied him a FAPE.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found one clear failure: the district did not assess Student for auditory processing disorder even though it was required to do so. The district's speech-language specialist knew that ADHD and APD frequently occur together. Student's mother had specifically requested an auditory processing assessment in her November 2003 letter. And Student exhibited classic signs — difficulty following directions, distractibility, and trouble focusing on auditory information. Despite all of this, the district never referred Student to a licensed audiologist during its initial assessment process. Only the privately hired audiologist identified and documented the APD.

Because the district missed this assessment, the IEPs drafted in early 2004 were incomplete. They left out accommodations that would have helped Student — things like multisensory teaching methods, preferential seating, repetition of verbal instructions, and use of a planner. The ALJ found that these omissions meant the district failed to provide Student a FAPE from February 26, 2004 (when he was first found eligible) through the end of the 2003-2004 school year.

The ALJ rejected the district's other challenges: the district's psychological testing was found to be valid, its assistive technology assessment was reasonable as a starting point, and its child-find system was adequate for the years before Parent made her written request.

What Was Ordered

The district was ordered to reimburse Parent for the cost of the private audiology assessment conducted on May 27, 2004, including the audiologist's time to prepare her report.
To receive reimbursement, Student's side was required to submit a properly authenticated invoice and proof of payment to the district within 30 days of the decision.
The district was then required to pay the amount indicated within 30 days of receiving that documentation.
No compensatory education was awarded — the ALJ found the student's team failed to present evidence of specific educational harm or a concrete compensatory placement, so despite the FAPE denial, no additional services were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

Put your assessment requests in writing and be specific. Parent's written November 2003 letter requesting auditory processing assessment was a key piece of evidence. Because it was in writing and named auditory processing specifically, the ALJ was able to find the district had a clear obligation it then ignored. Verbal requests are easy to deny later.
If your child has ADHD, ask about auditory processing testing. The ALJ specifically noted the well-documented connection between ADHD and auditory processing disorders. If your child has ADHD and struggles with following directions, filtering background noise, or remembering instructions, you have grounds to request an audiology evaluation as part of the district's assessment — not just a speech-language screening.
Winning on liability is not enough — you must also prove harm and propose a remedy. The ALJ found the district denied Student a FAPE for several months but awarded no compensatory education because Parent's legal team presented no evidence of specific educational harm and no viable compensatory placement. If you believe your child lost educational ground, document it with expert testimony and have a concrete proposal ready for what would make it right.
The district must reimburse a private assessment if it should have conducted that assessment itself. Because the audiology evaluation was something the district was obligated to provide and failed to, and because its findings were ultimately used to shape Student's IEP, the ALJ ordered reimbursement. When a district skips a required area of assessment, a parent who fills that gap privately has a strong argument for getting that cost covered.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

The district was ordered to reimburse Parent for the cost of the private audiology assessment conducted on May 27, 2004, including the audiologist's time to prepare her report.
To receive reimbursement, Student's side was required to submit a properly authenticated invoice and proof of payment to the district within 30 days of the decision.
The district was then required to pay the amount indicated within 30 days of receiving that documentation.
No compensatory education was awarded — the ALJ found the student's team failed to present evidence of specific educational harm or a concrete compensatory placement, so despite the FAPE denial, no additional services were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

Put your assessment requests in writing and be specific. Parent's written November 2003 letter requesting auditory processing assessment was a key piece of evidence. Because it was in writing and named auditory processing specifically, the ALJ was able to find the district had a clear obligation it then ignored. Verbal requests are easy to deny later.
If your child has ADHD, ask about auditory processing testing. The ALJ specifically noted the well-documented connection between ADHD and auditory processing disorders. If your child has ADHD and struggles with following directions, filtering background noise, or remembering instructions, you have grounds to request an audiology evaluation as part of the district's assessment — not just a speech-language screening.
Winning on liability is not enough — you must also prove harm and propose a remedy. The ALJ found the district denied Student a FAPE for several months but awarded no compensatory education because Parent's legal team presented no evidence of specific educational harm and no viable compensatory placement. If you believe your child lost educational ground, document it with expert testimony and have a concrete proposal ready for what would make it right.
The district must reimburse a private assessment if it should have conducted that assessment itself. Because the audiology evaluation was something the district was obligated to provide and failed to, and because its findings were ultimately used to shape Student's IEP, the ALJ ordered reimbursement. When a district skips a required area of assessment, a parent who fills that gap privately has a strong argument for getting that cost covered.