District Wins: Chemo Side Effects Don't Require TBI Assessment, OAH Rules

A family challenged East Whittier City School District's 2014 psychoeducational assessment of their son, a leukemia survivor who received chemotherapy, arguing the district failed to assess him for traumatic brain injury, speech-language needs, occupational therapy, and social-emotional functioning. The ALJ found the district's assessment was comprehensive and appropriate, that chemotherapy side effects do not qualify a child for the traumatic brain injury eligibility category, and that the district properly considered parental input throughout the IEP process. All of the family's requests for relief — including an independent educational evaluation at public expense — were denied.

What Happened

Student was a nine-year-old boy who received chemotherapy to treat leukemia as a young child, including intrathecal chemotherapy (delivered through his spinal column) because doctors were concerned the disease might spread to his brain. By the time he reached second grade, he was struggling academically and showing deficits in attention, executive functioning, and memory. The family believed the chemotherapy had caused lasting brain damage and wanted the district to recognize him as a child with a traumatic brain injury — a specific eligibility category under special education law — rather than simply "other health impairment," the category the district had used since his first IEP in January 2013.

The district conducted a comprehensive reassessment in February 2014, covering cognitive abilities, academic achievement, visual-motor integration, phonological processing, and social-emotional functioning through rating scales and classroom observations. The family disagreed with the assessment and believed the district should also have evaluated Student for traumatic brain injury, speech and language needs, and occupational therapy. When the IEP team met to discuss the results, disagreements escalated — in part because the family's advocate became hostile and aggressive at two consecutive IEP meetings, leading the district to end one meeting early. The family also privately obtained a speech and language evaluation from Providence Speech and Hearing Center in May 2014, which found significant language impairments, but did not share that report with the district until after filing the due process complaint. The district filed its own due process case to defend its assessment; the family filed a separate case raising multiple FAPE claims; OAH consolidated the two cases.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor on every issue.

On the traumatic brain injury question, the ALJ explained that the legal definition of traumatic brain injury requires an injury caused by an external physical force — such as a blow to the head or an accident. Chemotherapy reaching the brain through the bloodstream or spinal column is an internal occurrence, not an external force. The ALJ found that the "other health impairment" category, which explicitly lists leukemia, was the correct and intended category for a child whose disabilities stem from a serious illness and its treatment. The ALJ noted that even Student's own expert neuropsychologist did not recommend a traumatic brain injury assessment or conclude that Student had suffered one.

On speech-language and occupational therapy, the ALJ found the district had no reason to suspect a disability in those areas prior to 2015. Student's teachers saw him communicate adequately in the classroom, and neither the district's nor Children's Hospital's earlier assessments flagged motor or language concerns. Critically, the family never shared the Providence speech-language assessment with the district before filing their due process complaint, so the district legally could not be held responsible for acting on findings it never received. When the district eventually assessed in both areas in 2015 (after the case was filed), no services were added to the IEP — suggesting the earlier lack of assessment did not cause harm.

On parental participation, the ALJ found the family had been deeply involved at every stage: they attended numerous IEP meetings with attorneys and an advocate, proposed IEP goals that were adopted by the team, and completed assessment rating scales. The fact that the district did not accept every preference of the family did not amount to a denial of meaningful participation. The ALJ also found that the failure to complete the April 2014 IEP meeting was caused by the family's advocate's hostile and bullying behavior, not by any wrongdoing by the district.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in full.
The district was not required to fund an independent educational evaluation.
No compensatory education or additional services were awarded.
The district was the prevailing party on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Chemotherapy and other medical treatments that affect the brain do not automatically qualify a child for the "traumatic brain injury" eligibility category. Under federal law, traumatic brain injury requires an injury from an external physical force — like an accident or impact. The effects of illness and medical treatment are covered under "other health impairment," which includes leukemia by name. If your child has a serious illness, this is still a valid and meaningful eligibility category that can support a strong IEP.
If you obtain a private assessment, share it with the district promptly — do not wait until you file a due process complaint. In this case, the family had a speech-language evaluation showing significant impairments but didn't give it to the district for nearly a year. The ALJ held the district couldn't be faulted for failing to act on information it never received. Providing outside assessments to the district in writing, as soon as you have them, is critical to building a record.
The behavior of advocates and attorneys at IEP meetings can affect how a hearing officer views your case. The ALJ described the family's advocate as "hostile," "aggressive," and "bullying," and found that this conduct — not district wrongdoing — caused the breakdown of the April 2014 IEP meeting. Your team represents you in these meetings; their conduct matters both practically and legally.
One below-average test score alone is generally not enough to require a district to conduct a full assessment in a new area. Student scored in the 19th percentile on a visual-motor integration test, which the family argued should have triggered an occupational therapy evaluation. The ALJ disagreed, noting that no expert testified that score alone warranted further assessment, and that classroom teachers saw no fine motor concerns. If you believe your child needs assessment in a specific area, building a case from multiple sources — teacher observations, outside evaluations, documented classroom struggles — will be far more persuasive.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor on every issue.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in full.
The district was not required to fund an independent educational evaluation.
No compensatory education or additional services were awarded.
The district was the prevailing party on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Chemotherapy and other medical treatments that affect the brain do not automatically qualify a child for the "traumatic brain injury" eligibility category. Under federal law, traumatic brain injury requires an injury from an external physical force — like an accident or impact. The effects of illness and medical treatment are covered under "other health impairment," which includes leukemia by name. If your child has a serious illness, this is still a valid and meaningful eligibility category that can support a strong IEP.
If you obtain a private assessment, share it with the district promptly — do not wait until you file a due process complaint. In this case, the family had a speech-language evaluation showing significant impairments but didn't give it to the district for nearly a year. The ALJ held the district couldn't be faulted for failing to act on information it never received. Providing outside assessments to the district in writing, as soon as you have them, is critical to building a record.
The behavior of advocates and attorneys at IEP meetings can affect how a hearing officer views your case. The ALJ described the family's advocate as "hostile," "aggressive," and "bullying," and found that this conduct — not district wrongdoing — caused the breakdown of the April 2014 IEP meeting. Your team represents you in these meetings; their conduct matters both practically and legally.
One below-average test score alone is generally not enough to require a district to conduct a full assessment in a new area. Student scored in the 19th percentile on a visual-motor integration test, which the family argued should have triggered an occupational therapy evaluation. The ALJ disagreed, noting that no expert testified that score alone warranted further assessment, and that classroom teachers saw no fine motor concerns. If you believe your child needs assessment in a specific area, building a case from multiple sources — teacher observations, outside evaluations, documented classroom struggles — will be far more persuasive.