District Failed to Find Student with Diabetes Eligible for Special Education

A 15-year-old student with type one diabetes had been failing classes and accumulating absences for years, yet Irvine Unified School District refused to find him eligible for special education. After a settlement agreement led to a 504 plan that also failed, the ALJ found that the District should have identified the student as eligible under the 'Other Health Impairment' category by March 23, 2009 at the latest. The student prevailed on the child find and eligibility issue, with remedies to be determined in a follow-up proceeding.

What Happened

Student was a 15-year-old high school student with type one diabetes living within the Irvine Unified School District. Throughout elementary, middle, and high school, Student had a long history of tardiness, absences, and failure to complete assignments. He failed most of his academic classes despite scoring in the superior range on cognitive ability tests. Student's pediatric endocrinologist testified that diabetes affects every aspect of a diabetic individual's life — when blood sugar is too high or too low, it can cause difficulty concentrating, weakness, tiredness, and trouble communicating, and it can take 30 minutes or more to stabilize. He believed the diabetes was an underlying cause of Student's school problems, even if it was not the sole cause.

The District conducted a psychoeducational assessment in March 2008 but concluded Student was not eligible for special education, attributing his failures to lack of effort rather than his medical condition. Student's parents challenged that determination, and in July 2008 the parties settled the prior case. Under the settlement, the District agreed to provide Student with a 504 plan including accommodations like preferential seating, extended time, and check-ins. However, the 504 plan also failed — Student continued to fail classes and miss school. By January 2009, the District was sending notices about Student's "habitual truancy" to the School Attendance Review Board (SARB), and eventually moved to transfer Student to a credit-recovery school without any IEP process. Parents filed a new due process case in May 2009 arguing the District had violated its obligation to identify Student as eligible for special education.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that Student met the legal criteria for special education eligibility under the category of "Other Health Impairment" (OHI). Under California law, a student qualifies under OHI when a chronic health condition like diabetes causes limited strength, vitality, or alertness that adversely affects educational performance. The evidence — including testimony from Student's doctor and an independent psychologist — supported exactly that finding. The District's own witnesses, including a school psychologist and nurse, could not effectively dispute the medical opinions, and none of the District's witnesses were physicians.

The ALJ also addressed the 2008 settlement agreement. Because the parties had agreed to try a 504 plan, the District was given a reasonable window to see whether that approach would work. But by January 22, 2009 — when the District itself noticed a SARB meeting about Student's habitual truancy — it was clear the 504 plan had failed. At that point, the District's obligation to re-evaluate Student and find him eligible for special education was triggered. The ALJ found that the District should have completed that re-evaluation and found Student eligible within 60 days — by March 23, 2009. Its failure to do so denied Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The specific remedies for that denial were left for a second phase of the hearing.

What Was Ordered

The ALJ declared that Student is eligible for special education and related services under the eligibility category of "Other Health Impairment."
The ALJ found that the District denied Student a FAPE by failing to identify him as eligible for special education by March 23, 2009.
The specific remedies (such as compensatory education or other relief) were deferred to a second, follow-up hearing phase.

Why This Matters for Parents

A settlement agreement does not permanently waive your child's right to special education. The ALJ found that although the 2008 settlement barred claims from before that date, it did not prevent new claims from arising once the agreed-upon 504 plan clearly stopped working. If a plan fails, the District's obligations under IDEA are re-triggered.
Districts cannot rely on high test scores alone to deny eligibility. Student scored in the superior range on cognitive assessments, yet the ALJ still found him eligible. What matters is whether a health condition adversely affects educational performance — not whether the student is intellectually capable.
Your child's doctor's input is critical — and the District must take it seriously. The ALJ gave significant weight to the pediatric endocrinologist's testimony that diabetes was an underlying cause of Student's school difficulties. If the District refuses to consult your child's physician or dismisses medical opinions, that can be used to challenge an eligibility denial.
When a 504 plan fails, the District has an obligation to act. The District knew the 504 plan was not working — Student kept failing and missing school — but took no steps to re-evaluate him for special education. Parents should document when plans stop working and formally request re-evaluation in writing, which starts the clock on the District's legal obligations.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The ALJ declared that Student is eligible for special education and related services under the eligibility category of "Other Health Impairment."
The ALJ found that the District denied Student a FAPE by failing to identify him as eligible for special education by March 23, 2009.
The specific remedies (such as compensatory education or other relief) were deferred to a second, follow-up hearing phase.

Why This Matters for Parents

A settlement agreement does not permanently waive your child's right to special education. The ALJ found that although the 2008 settlement barred claims from before that date, it did not prevent new claims from arising once the agreed-upon 504 plan clearly stopped working. If a plan fails, the District's obligations under IDEA are re-triggered.
Districts cannot rely on high test scores alone to deny eligibility. Student scored in the superior range on cognitive assessments, yet the ALJ still found him eligible. What matters is whether a health condition adversely affects educational performance — not whether the student is intellectually capable.
Your child's doctor's input is critical — and the District must take it seriously. The ALJ gave significant weight to the pediatric endocrinologist's testimony that diabetes was an underlying cause of Student's school difficulties. If the District refuses to consult your child's physician or dismisses medical opinions, that can be used to challenge an eligibility denial.
When a 504 plan fails, the District has an obligation to act. The District knew the 504 plan was not working — Student kept failing and missing school — but took no steps to re-evaluate him for special education. Parents should document when plans stop working and formally request re-evaluation in writing, which starts the clock on the District's legal obligations.