District Wins: Parents Cannot Get a Second IEE From the Same Evaluation

Parents of an 18-year-old student with autism sought a second publicly funded independent educational evaluation (IEE) for visual processing after disagreeing with the district's 2014 triennial assessment. The district had already funded one IEE by the parents' preferred evaluator, Dr. Passaro, who confirmed visual processing was an area of strength. The ALJ ruled that parents are entitled to only one publicly funded IEE per district evaluation, and denied all of the student's requests for relief.

What Happened

Student was an 18-year-old high school senior who had been eligible for special education services as a student with autism since age three. She was placed in a special day class (mild to moderate) with speech and language services, behavior intervention services, and travel training. In February 2014, the district completed a triennial multidisciplinary assessment that evaluated Student across many areas, including visual processing. The assessment found that Student's visual processing was within the average range and was actually a relative area of strength — she relied on visual supports in her speech therapy and daily learning.

Parents disagreed with the district's February 2014 triennial assessment and requested a publicly funded IEE at a September 2014 IEP meeting. The district agreed and contracted with Parents' preferred evaluator, Dr. Perry Passaro, a licensed psychologist with extensive experience in special education. Dr. Passaro completed a comprehensive 63-page psychoeducational evaluation in January 2015 and reached the same conclusion: Student's visual processing was in the average range and was an area of strength, not a suspected disability. Despite this, Parents later requested a second publicly funded IEE — this time by a developmental optometrist — again citing disagreement with the original 2014 district assessment. The district declined, and Parents filed for due process.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor and denied all of Student's requests for relief. The central legal issue was whether the district was required to either fund a second IEE or file a due process complaint to defend its original evaluation. The ALJ said no.

Federal law limits parents to one publicly funded IEE for each district evaluation with which they disagree. Because the district had already funded Dr. Passaro's evaluation in response to Parents' disagreement with the 2014 triennial, Parents had used their one opportunity. Requesting a second publicly funded IEE based on the same original district evaluation does not restart the "file or fund" clock for the district. The ALJ noted that interpreting the law otherwise would make the statutory limitation meaningless.

The ALJ also found that the district's original triennial assessment was legally adequate. School psychologists are qualified to evaluate visual processing as part of a standard psychoeducational assessment, and both the district's evaluator and Dr. Passaro — Parents' own chosen expert — found visual processing to be average and not an area of suspected disability. Parents argued that a developmental optometrist might use different tests and find deficits that school psychologists would miss, but both Dr. Passaro and the district's school psychologist testified persuasively that any real visual processing deficits would have shown up in the standardized psychoeducational testing already completed. Student offered no evidence that a developmental optometrist's evaluation was actually needed.

The ALJ also confirmed that the district handled Parents' requests procedurally: it responded to each of Parents' emails and letters with timely prior written notices explaining the basis for its refusals, satisfying its notice obligations under California and federal law.

What Was Ordered

Student's request for a publicly funded independent educational evaluation in visual processing was denied.
All other requests for relief were denied.
The district prevailed on the single issue heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

You get one IEE per district evaluation, not one per disagreement. Federal law gives parents the right to request a publicly funded IEE each time a district conducts an evaluation they disagree with — but only one IEE per evaluation. If you've already received a publicly funded IEE in response to a specific district assessment, you cannot request a second funded IEE by again disagreeing with that same assessment.
Your chosen IEE evaluator's findings count, even if they don't help your case. When Parents selected Dr. Passaro and the district funded his evaluation, his conclusions became part of the record. Because Dr. Passaro agreed with the district that visual processing was not a concern, it significantly weakened the argument that further testing was needed.
School psychologists are legally recognized as qualified to assess visual processing. If you believe a specialist (like a developmental optometrist) is needed to evaluate your child, you must present concrete evidence that standard psychoeducational testing is insufficient — not just argue that a specialist might use different tools. The burden is on the parent to show the area is actually a "suspected disability."
Districts must respond to IEE requests in writing, but timeliness and documentation matter for parents too. This case shows that the district protected itself by sending detailed prior written notices in response to each parental request. Parents should similarly document their requests in writing and keep records of all district responses.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Student's request for a publicly funded independent educational evaluation in visual processing was denied.
All other requests for relief were denied.
The district prevailed on the single issue heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

You get one IEE per district evaluation, not one per disagreement. Federal law gives parents the right to request a publicly funded IEE each time a district conducts an evaluation they disagree with — but only one IEE per evaluation. If you've already received a publicly funded IEE in response to a specific district assessment, you cannot request a second funded IEE by again disagreeing with that same assessment.
Your chosen IEE evaluator's findings count, even if they don't help your case. When Parents selected Dr. Passaro and the district funded his evaluation, his conclusions became part of the record. Because Dr. Passaro agreed with the district that visual processing was not a concern, it significantly weakened the argument that further testing was needed.
School psychologists are legally recognized as qualified to assess visual processing. If you believe a specialist (like a developmental optometrist) is needed to evaluate your child, you must present concrete evidence that standard psychoeducational testing is insufficient — not just argue that a specialist might use different tools. The burden is on the parent to show the area is actually a "suspected disability."
Districts must respond to IEE requests in writing, but timeliness and documentation matter for parents too. This case shows that the district protected itself by sending detailed prior written notices in response to each parental request. Parents should similarly document their requests in writing and keep records of all district responses.