District Wins: OT Assessment Found Valid, Parent Denied Independent Evaluation

A mother requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE) in occupational therapy for her 15-year-old son with cerebral palsy, disagreeing with the district's July 2009 OT assessment. The district filed for a due process hearing to defend its assessment. The ALJ ruled that the district's OT assessment was properly conducted and did not have to fund an independent evaluation at public expense.

What Happened

Student was a 15-year-old with cerebral palsy/spastic triplegia, a condition that caused weakness in his left arm and required him to use ankle foot orthoses and forearm crutches to walk. He was eligible for special education under the category of orthopedic impairment and attended school within the Rowland Unified School District. Parent's primary concern was that Student's writing was too slow to allow him to progress academically, and she also worried about his movement, balance, and ability to function independently with both arms.

In June 2009, Parent requested an occupational therapy (OT) assessment. The district arranged for a licensed occupational therapist from an outside agency to conduct the evaluation in July 2009. The assessor reviewed Student's IEPs and prior OT assessment, observed him in class, administered a standardized fine motor test (the BOT-2), and interviewed both Student's teacher and Parent. The assessor concluded that Student had adequate fine motor skills to access his education and did not need school-based OT. Parent disagreed with this conclusion and requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense — meaning she wanted the district to pay for a second opinion from an outside evaluator. Rather than pay for the IEE, the district filed for a due process hearing to prove its own assessment was valid.

What the ALJ Found

Because the district was the party asking to have its assessment upheld, it had the burden of proving the assessment was properly done. The ALJ found the district met that burden.

The assessor was highly qualified, with a bachelor's degree in OT, state licensure, and experience conducting approximately 120 OT assessments — 30 of which involved children with cerebral palsy specifically. The evaluation used multiple methods: record review, teacher and parent interviews, classroom observation, and a standardized test. The ALJ found the assessment was not culturally or racially biased, and that the assessor's decision to conduct the evaluation in English was justified because all instruction was in English and Student conversed easily in English (confirmed by Student testifying in English at the hearing without an interpreter).

The ALJ also addressed Parent's supporting evidence. Parent brought two medical prescriptions — from a neurologist and an orthopedic doctor — recommending OT evaluation and treatment. However, both prescriptions were written after the assessment took place, so the assessor could not have considered them. More importantly, neither prescription stated an opinion about whether the district's assessment was appropriate, and neither doctor testified at the hearing. The ALJ found these documents did not undermine the district's assessment.

The ALJ emphasized an important legal distinction: a doctor may recommend OT to address physical limitations from cerebral palsy, but that is a medical judgment — not the same as determining whether a student needs school-based OT to benefit from special education. The district's assessment correctly focused on the educational standard.

What Was Ordered

The district's July 10, 2009 OT assessment was found to be properly conducted.
The district does not have to provide Student with an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense.

Why This Matters for Parents

A doctor's prescription for OT is not the same as proof that the district's assessment was wrong. Medical professionals evaluate students based on their physical health needs. School-based OT is only required when a student needs it to access their education. These are different standards, and a medical referral alone will not automatically entitle your child to school-based OT or an IEE.
If you request an IEE and the district challenges it, the district must prove its assessment was done correctly — but you still need evidence to counter it. Parent disagreed with the assessment but was not able to produce evidence at the hearing showing the assessment failed to follow the law. Simply disagreeing with the conclusion is not enough — bring documentation, expert testimony, or specific procedural errors to the hearing.
Assessments must use multiple methods, not just one test. Under the law, no single test can be the basis for a decision. In this case, the district's assessment held up precisely because it combined standardized testing, observation, interviews, and record review. When reviewing your child's assessment, check whether the evaluator used a variety of tools — if they relied on only one measure, that could be grounds to challenge the evaluation.
The language of the assessment matters. The assessment plan noted Student's primary language as Spanish, but the assessor confirmed through interviews and observation that English was appropriate. If your child's assessment plan lists the wrong language or an interpreter is not provided when needed, that is a procedural issue worth raising — and it was a contested point in this case, even though the district prevailed.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

Because the district was the party asking to have its assessment upheld, it had the burden of proving the assessment was properly done. The ALJ found the district met that burden.

What Was Ordered

The district's July 10, 2009 OT assessment was found to be properly conducted.
The district does not have to provide Student with an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense.

Why This Matters for Parents

A doctor's prescription for OT is not the same as proof that the district's assessment was wrong. Medical professionals evaluate students based on their physical health needs. School-based OT is only required when a student needs it to access their education. These are different standards, and a medical referral alone will not automatically entitle your child to school-based OT or an IEE.
If you request an IEE and the district challenges it, the district must prove its assessment was done correctly — but you still need evidence to counter it. Parent disagreed with the assessment but was not able to produce evidence at the hearing showing the assessment failed to follow the law. Simply disagreeing with the conclusion is not enough — bring documentation, expert testimony, or specific procedural errors to the hearing.
Assessments must use multiple methods, not just one test. Under the law, no single test can be the basis for a decision. In this case, the district's assessment held up precisely because it combined standardized testing, observation, interviews, and record review. When reviewing your child's assessment, check whether the evaluator used a variety of tools — if they relied on only one measure, that could be grounds to challenge the evaluation.
The language of the assessment matters. The assessment plan noted Student's primary language as Spanish, but the assessor confirmed through interviews and observation that English was appropriate. If your child's assessment plan lists the wrong language or an interpreter is not provided when needed, that is a procedural issue worth raising — and it was a contested point in this case, even though the district prevailed.