District Wins: No OT Services Required When Three Assessments Show No School-Based Need

Parents requested occupational therapy (OT) services through their daughter's IEP, citing sensory and motor concerns observed at home and in day care. Los Angeles Unified School District conducted three separate OT assessments — including one funded independent evaluation chosen by Parents — and all three concluded Student did not need OT to access her educational program. The ALJ ruled in the District's favor, finding Student's claim that LAUSD denied her a FAPE was not supported by the evidence.

What Happened

Student is a four-and-a-half-year-old girl with a speech and language disability who attends a special day preschool aphasia program through Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). From the time Student was 20 months old, her parents and pediatrician noticed sensory and motor concerns — including toe-walking, frequent falling, and difficulty with fine motor tasks. Student had been receiving occupational therapy (OT) through her private health insurer and through a regional center, though the regional center stopped services when she turned three. When Student became eligible for special education at the start of the 2008-2009 school year, her Parents requested that OT services be added to her IEP, believing that her sensory and motor difficulties were affecting her ability to function and stay safe.

LAUSD conducted an initial OT assessment in September 2008, which found no school-based OT needs. Parents disagreed. The District conducted a second, more comprehensive OT assessment in April and May 2009, which again found no educational need for OT. Still disagreeing, Parents requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE), which the District funded. That independent evaluation — performed by a provider selected by Parents — also concluded that Student did not qualify for OT services through her IEP. Despite three assessments all reaching the same conclusion, Parents continued to dispute the findings and eventually filed for due process. After the complaint was filed, Parents hired their own private OT evaluator, but that evaluator admitted she had not observed Student in the school setting or interviewed Student's teacher, and could not say with certainty that Student needed school-based OT.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the District's favor. All three OT evaluations — conducted by qualified, experienced occupational therapists — consistently found that Student could access her educational program without OT services. The assessments used multiple methods: classroom observations, clinical testing, parent and teacher interviews, and standardized tools. The evaluators specifically accounted for Student's speech and language disability by using non-verbal and non-language-based tests, so her communication challenges did not skew the results.

Student's classroom teacher, who observed her daily for nearly two years, also reported that Student had no motor or sensory problems that prevented her from participating in the classroom. The teacher noted Student could write her name, use scissors, catch and throw a ball, and access playground equipment without difficulty.

The ALJ gave little weight to the Parents' privately-retained evaluator because her report was completed after the due process complaint was filed and — critically — she never observed Student at school or spoke with Student's teacher. Under the legal "snapshot rule," an IEP is judged based on what the IEP team knew at the time decisions were made, not information gathered later. Because that report was unavailable at the January 2010 IEP meeting, it could not be used to second-guess the District's decisions. Similarly, observations from Student's day care supervisor were not considered decisive because she was not an OT professional and her observations took place outside the school setting.

The ALJ emphasized a key legal distinction: school-based OT focuses on whether a student can access and function in the educational environment — not on medically-based motor development goals. The fact that Student received (and may have benefited from) private, medically-based OT through her health insurer does not automatically mean she was entitled to the same services through her IEP.

What Was Ordered

Student's request for OT services through the IEP was denied.
The District prevailed on the only issue heard and decided in the case.

Why This Matters for Parents

School-based OT is judged by educational need, not medical need. A district only has to provide OT if Student needs it to access her education — not because a doctor or private therapist recommends it for developmental or health reasons. If your child receives private OT, that alone is not enough to require the district to provide it through the IEP.
Three consistent assessments are very hard to overcome. When a district obtains multiple evaluations — including an independent one funded by the district and chosen by the parents — that all reach the same conclusion, the burden on parents to prove otherwise becomes very high. If you disagree with assessment results, gather specific school-based evidence (teacher reports, classroom observations, work samples) that directly contradicts the evaluators' findings.
Your private evaluator must observe your child at school. An outside evaluation that does not include classroom observation or teacher interviews carries much less weight in a due process hearing. If you hire your own evaluator to challenge the district, make sure they assess your child in the school setting and consult with school staff.
The "snapshot rule" means timing matters. Evidence gathered after an IEP meeting — including evaluations, reports, or expert opinions — generally cannot be used to argue that the IEP developed at that meeting was wrong. If you want information considered, make sure it reaches the IEP team before the meeting, not after a due process complaint is filed.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Student's request for OT services through the IEP was denied.
The District prevailed on the only issue heard and decided in the case.

Why This Matters for Parents

School-based OT is judged by educational need, not medical need. A district only has to provide OT if Student needs it to access her education — not because a doctor or private therapist recommends it for developmental or health reasons. If your child receives private OT, that alone is not enough to require the district to provide it through the IEP.
Three consistent assessments are very hard to overcome. When a district obtains multiple evaluations — including an independent one funded by the district and chosen by the parents — that all reach the same conclusion, the burden on parents to prove otherwise becomes very high. If you disagree with assessment results, gather specific school-based evidence (teacher reports, classroom observations, work samples) that directly contradicts the evaluators' findings.
Your private evaluator must observe your child at school. An outside evaluation that does not include classroom observation or teacher interviews carries much less weight in a due process hearing. If you hire your own evaluator to challenge the district, make sure they assess your child in the school setting and consult with school staff.
The "snapshot rule" means timing matters. Evidence gathered after an IEP meeting — including evaluations, reports, or expert opinions — generally cannot be used to argue that the IEP developed at that meeting was wrong. If you want information considered, make sure it reaches the IEP team before the meeting, not after a due process complaint is filed.