District Wins IEE Dispute After Thorough Physical Therapy Assessment

What Happened

Student was a 10-year-old fifth grader with a specific learning disability and cerebral palsy. She received special education services including occupational therapy and a resource specialist program, and was placed in a general education classroom. Student had a history of falls at school, including one in which she fractured her wrist and another in which she cut her head, and her private medical provider (Kaiser) was providing her with medically-based physical therapy. Parent had significant concerns about Student's safety on the school playground and her ability to access the school environment, particularly in light of these injuries.

In September 2012, the District conducted a physical therapy (PT) assessment through a licensed outside agency to determine whether Student needed educationally-based PT as a related service. The assessor — a highly experienced pediatric physical therapist with over 40 years of experience — used multiple methods including record review, parent interviews, observation, a physical examination, and a standardized testing tool called the School Function Assessment (SFA). The assessment concluded that Student did not need educationally-based PT to access her education because she showed no physical deficits that interfered with her safety on campus. When Parent disagreed with that finding and requested an IEE at public expense, the District declined and instead filed for due process to defend its assessment.

A complicating factor: Parent wanted the District to produce internal incident reports about Student's prior school injuries, which the District refused on the grounds that they were privileged attorney work product. Parent declined to participate in the hearing once the District called its first witness, leaving without cross-examining any witnesses or presenting any evidence.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the District, finding that the September 2012 PT assessment was properly conducted and that Student was not entitled to an IEE at public expense.

The assessment met all legal requirements: it was conducted by a qualified assessor, used multiple tools and methods (not just a single test), addressed Parent's specific concerns, was not racially or culturally biased, and resulted in a comprehensive written report. The assessor reviewed Student's medical records from Kaiser, consulted with Student's private PT, spoke with Parent, interviewed Student, physically examined Student, observed her on the playground, administered the SFA standardized assessment, and consulted with Student's teacher, principal, and school health clerk.

Critically, the ALJ drew a clear distinction between medical PT and educational PT. Although Kaiser had recommended medically-based PT to improve Student's performance in sports and daily activities, the District's assessor explained that this medical need did not mean Student required PT to safely access her education. Student was observed successfully navigating stairs, ramps, uneven terrain, ladders, and playground equipment without falling. Her SFA scores were at or near grade level across all relevant areas, and her teacher and principal reported no safety concerns.

The ALJ also noted that the District's evidence was completely uncontradicted at the hearing because Parent chose to leave without presenting any witnesses or cross-examining the District's expert.

What Was Ordered

1. The District's September 2012 physical therapy assessment was found to be properly conducted.
2. The District is not required to fund an independent educational evaluation (IEE) in physical therapy at public expense.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Disagreeing with an assessment is not enough — you must participate in the hearing to challenge it. Parent left the hearing before any evidence was presented, which meant the District's expert testimony went completely unchallenged. If you disagree with a district assessment, attending and cross-examining the district's witnesses (or bringing your own expert) is essential to building your case.

2. Medical PT and educational PT are legally different things. A private doctor recommending physical therapy does not automatically mean the school must provide it. Schools are only required to provide PT if a student needs it to access their education — not to improve general health, sports performance, or daily living skills. If your child receives medical PT privately, make sure to clearly document how their physical limitations affect their ability to participate in school activities specifically.

3. When a district believes its assessment was appropriate and denies an IEE request, it must file for due process quickly. The law requires the district to either fund the IEE or file for a hearing without unnecessary delay. Here, the District filed within about a month of the IEP meeting — which the ALJ treated as acceptable. Parents should know that if a district denies your IEE request and does not file for hearing promptly, that itself can be a procedural violation worth raising.

4. A thorough, multi-method assessment is much harder to challenge. The District's assessor used records, interviews, observation, physical examination, AND a standardized test. Courts and ALJs are far more likely to uphold assessments that use multiple sources of information. If you believe a district assessment was incomplete, document specifically which methods were skipped or which concerns were ignored — that is your strongest argument for an IEE.