Capistrano District Mostly Prevails in Concussion/Emotional Disturbance Case, But Owes Transportation Reimbursement

A student who suffered a sports concussion in 2014 and was later found eligible for special education under emotional disturbance challenged Capistrano Unified School District's assessment, IEP offers, and procedural compliance. The ALJ found the district failed to timely offer an assessment plan after a parent's September 2015 oral request, and failed to provide written notice when it refused to fund a private math class at Fusion Academy. The parent was awarded $704.06 in transportation reimbursement, but the vast majority of claims — including traumatic brain injury classification, compensatory education, and IEE for a medical evaluation — were denied.

What Happened

Student was a happy, academically successful middle schooler attending a Capistrano Unified charter school when she suffered a sports-related concussion in September 2014. While she recovered well at school — continuing to earn good grades, interact positively with peers, and show no cognitive changes in the classroom — her behavior at home deteriorated significantly. She developed severe mood swings, an eating disorder, and began cutting herself. She was hospitalized three times for psychiatric crises between May and October 2015, but school staff were largely unaware of the severity of her struggles because she masked her emotional state at school.

Parent met with the school's director in September 2015 to request that the district assess Student for special education eligibility, prompted by a county mental health assessor's recommendation. The director failed to initiate the assessment process. It was not until Parent followed up in writing after Student's third hospitalization in October 2015 that the district moved forward, ultimately providing an assessment plan on November 20, 2015. District found Student eligible under the category of emotional disturbance in February 2016. Parent disputed this classification, arguing Student should primarily be categorized as having a traumatic brain injury, and raised numerous additional claims about the adequacy of the IEPs offered, procedural violations, and the district's refusal to fund private services including dialectical behavior therapy transportation and a placement at Fusion Academy for math instruction.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled largely in the district's favor. The district's February 2016 psychoeducational assessment was found to be thorough and appropriate. Student's teachers and school records consistently showed no academic or social deficits at school, and none of Student's treating physicians had connected her emotional difficulties to her concussion or recommended further neurological testing. The ALJ found no basis to classify Student under traumatic brain injury, and upheld the emotional disturbance classification. The IEP goals, services, and placement offers were found to be reasonably designed to meet Student's needs.

However, the ALJ found two violations. First, the district failed to offer Parent an assessment plan within 15 days of her oral request on September 18, 2015 — a clear procedural violation that delayed Student's eligibility determination by approximately two months. Second, when Parent repeatedly requested that the district fund Student's attendance at Fusion Academy for math, the district informally refused but never provided the required written prior notice explaining its reasons. Because attending Fusion would have changed Student's placement (reducing time in general education), the district was legally required to put its refusal in writing. Failing to do so significantly impaired Parent's ability to understand and respond to the district's decision.

On the IEE claim, the ALJ found that the district was not required to fund an independent medical evaluation because it had never conducted a medical evaluation itself — parents can only seek a publicly funded independent evaluation in the same area the district already assessed.

What Was Ordered

District must reimburse Parent $704.06 for transportation costs to take Student to 14 therapy sessions at Harbor UCLA between October 21, 2015, and February 16, 2016 (94 miles round trip at the IRS mileage rate). No further proof of payment is required.
By one month after the start of the 2017–2018 school year, District must provide three hours of training to special education staff and administrators at both the charter school and Student's high school. Training must cover: meaningful parental participation in the IEP process; the obligation to assess students upon parental request and to put oral requests in writing; and the requirement to provide prior written notice of any proposed or refused changes to placement. Training must be provided by outside qualified professionals — not district employees.
All other relief requested by Student was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Put your assessment request in writing — and make sure the district acknowledges it. The district was found to have violated the law by not providing an assessment plan within 15 days of Parent's oral request in September 2015. If you ask for an assessment verbally, follow up immediately in writing. California law requires the district to respond to an assessment request within 15 days, regardless of whether it was made orally or in writing.
If a district refuses to fund a private placement, it must tell you why — in writing. When Parent asked the district to pay for Fusion Academy, the district only informally said no. The ALJ found this violated the law because any refusal to change (or agree to change) a student's placement requires formal written prior notice explaining the reasons. If you request a private placement and the district refuses without giving you a detailed written explanation, that is a procedural violation.
A district is only required to fund an independent evaluation in an area it already assessed. Parent requested a publicly funded independent medical evaluation, but the district had never conducted a medical evaluation itself. The ALJ ruled that the IEE right only allows parents to get a second opinion in the same field the district assessed — it does not require the district to fund evaluations in entirely new areas it never touched.
Documenting what happens at school — not just at home — matters enormously. Most of Student's claims failed because her difficulties were not visible at school. The ALJ repeatedly emphasized that IDEA eligibility and services are tied to how a disability affects a student's education. If your child struggles at home but appears fine at school, work with therapists and doctors to document any school-based impact, and share that documentation with the district promptly — not at the hearing.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

District must reimburse Parent $704.06 for transportation costs to take Student to 14 therapy sessions at Harbor UCLA between October 21, 2015, and February 16, 2016 (94 miles round trip at the IRS mileage rate). No further proof of payment is required.
By one month after the start of the 2017–2018 school year, District must provide three hours of training to special education staff and administrators at both the charter school and Student's high school. Training must cover: meaningful parental participation in the IEP process; the obligation to assess students upon parental request and to put oral requests in writing; and the requirement to provide prior written notice of any proposed or refused changes to placement. Training must be provided by outside qualified professionals — not district employees.
All other relief requested by Student was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Put your assessment request in writing — and make sure the district acknowledges it. The district was found to have violated the law by not providing an assessment plan within 15 days of Parent's oral request in September 2015. If you ask for an assessment verbally, follow up immediately in writing. California law requires the district to respond to an assessment request within 15 days, regardless of whether it was made orally or in writing.
If a district refuses to fund a private placement, it must tell you why — in writing. When Parent asked the district to pay for Fusion Academy, the district only informally said no. The ALJ found this violated the law because any refusal to change (or agree to change) a student's placement requires formal written prior notice explaining the reasons. If you request a private placement and the district refuses without giving you a detailed written explanation, that is a procedural violation.
A district is only required to fund an independent evaluation in an area it already assessed. Parent requested a publicly funded independent medical evaluation, but the district had never conducted a medical evaluation itself. The ALJ ruled that the IEE right only allows parents to get a second opinion in the same field the district assessed — it does not require the district to fund evaluations in entirely new areas it never touched.
Documenting what happens at school — not just at home — matters enormously. Most of Student's claims failed because her difficulties were not visible at school. The ALJ repeatedly emphasized that IDEA eligibility and services are tied to how a disability affects a student's education. If your child struggles at home but appears fine at school, work with therapists and doctors to document any school-based impact, and share that documentation with the district promptly — not at the hearing.