LAUSD's Psychoeducational and OT Assessments Found Appropriate; IEE Funding Denied

Los Angeles Unified School District filed for due process to defend its May 2019 psychoeducational and occupational therapy assessments of a six-year-old student with autism. Parents had requested publicly funded independent evaluations after disagreeing with the district's IEP offer. The ALJ found both assessments met all legal requirements and denied the parents' request for independent evaluation funding.

What Happened

Student was a six-year-old boy who had previously been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder with accompanying intellectual impairment by a Kaiser Permanente pediatric team. He briefly attended kindergarten at Independence Elementary School — enrolled for 46 days but present for only 27 — before his parents withdrew him in February 2019. Mother raised concerns about Student's speech delays, repetitive language, difficulty with attention and social conventions, and excessive activity levels. In response, Los Angeles Unified proposed a comprehensive initial assessment, which Parents consented to in March 2019.

The district completed its assessments and held an IEP team meeting on May 29, 2019, where Parents were provided copies of the reports and had the opportunity to ask questions. Parents did not consent to the IEP offer the district proposed. That summer, they requested that the district pay for independent psychoeducational and occupational therapy evaluations, believing independent assessors would make better placement and services recommendations. The district declined and exercised its legal right to file for due process to defend its assessments — which is exactly what the law allows a district to do when it believes its evaluation was appropriate.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found in favor of the district on both issues. Regarding the psychoeducational assessment, school psychologist Mr. Manzanares was found to be highly qualified, with over 350 prior assessments and five years of experience with the district. He used multiple valid tools — including standardized tests, parent interviews, teacher input, record reviews, and rating scales — to evaluate Student's cognitive ability, academic performance, communication, motor skills, social-emotional status, and adaptive functioning. Because Student was not enrolled in school, the assessor could not observe him in a classroom, but the ALJ accepted the explanation that a brief visit to a classroom would not have yielded reliable information. The assessment correctly identified Student as eligible for special education under the autism eligibility category and made educationally relevant recommendations.

Regarding the occupational therapy assessment, therapist Ms. Wolf was also found to be well-qualified. She assessed Student across two days in a classroom setting, evaluated foundational skills, visual skills, fine motor abilities, sensory processing, and social participation, and used standardized tools along with parent interviews and direct observation. The ALJ found her assessment thorough, comprehensive, and consistent with the evidence presented at hearing. Both assessments were administered in English (Student's native language), followed publisher instructions, used multiple measures, and were not discriminatory.

Because both assessments complied with all legal requirements, Parents were not entitled to have the district pay for independent evaluations.

What Was Ordered

Los Angeles Unified's May 2019 psychoeducational assessment was found appropriate and legally compliant.
Los Angeles Unified's May 2019 occupational therapy assessment was found appropriate and legally compliant.
Parents' request for public funding of independent psychoeducational and occupational therapy evaluations was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

You have the right to request an independent evaluation, but the district can push back. When a parent disagrees with a district's assessment and requests an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense, the district has two choices: pay for the IEE, or file for due process to defend its evaluation. This case is an example of the district choosing to go to hearing — and winning. Knowing this is possible helps parents prepare.
A district assessment doesn't have to be perfect — it has to be legally sufficient. The standard the ALJ applied was not whether the district's assessment was the best possible evaluation or whether an independent evaluator might reach different conclusions. It was whether the assessment used valid tools, qualified professionals, multiple measures, and followed proper procedures. Parents who disagree with district assessments should be prepared to point to specific legal deficiencies, not just a preference for different conclusions.
Classroom observation may not always be required. The ALJ accepted the district's reasoning that observing a student who is not enrolled in school would not produce useful data. Parents should be aware that if their child is not attending school, this gap in the assessment may be harder to challenge — and keeping a child enrolled, even part-time, can preserve more evaluation options.
The FAPE question was kept separate. Parents in this case also filed a separate due process complaint arguing the district failed to provide a free appropriate public education. That issue was not decided here. Winning or losing on whether an assessment was appropriate does not automatically resolve whether the resulting IEP was appropriate — those are distinct legal questions that can be pursued independently.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

Because both assessments complied with all legal requirements, Parents were not entitled to have the district pay for independent evaluations.

What Was Ordered

Los Angeles Unified's May 2019 psychoeducational assessment was found appropriate and legally compliant.
Los Angeles Unified's May 2019 occupational therapy assessment was found appropriate and legally compliant.
Parents' request for public funding of independent psychoeducational and occupational therapy evaluations was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

You have the right to request an independent evaluation, but the district can push back. When a parent disagrees with a district's assessment and requests an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense, the district has two choices: pay for the IEE, or file for due process to defend its evaluation. This case is an example of the district choosing to go to hearing — and winning. Knowing this is possible helps parents prepare.
A district assessment doesn't have to be perfect — it has to be legally sufficient. The standard the ALJ applied was not whether the district's assessment was the best possible evaluation or whether an independent evaluator might reach different conclusions. It was whether the assessment used valid tools, qualified professionals, multiple measures, and followed proper procedures. Parents who disagree with district assessments should be prepared to point to specific legal deficiencies, not just a preference for different conclusions.
Classroom observation may not always be required. The ALJ accepted the district's reasoning that observing a student who is not enrolled in school would not produce useful data. Parents should be aware that if their child is not attending school, this gap in the assessment may be harder to challenge — and keeping a child enrolled, even part-time, can preserve more evaluation options.
The FAPE question was kept separate. Parents in this case also filed a separate due process complaint arguing the district failed to provide a free appropriate public education. That issue was not decided here. Winning or losing on whether an assessment was appropriate does not automatically resolve whether the resulting IEP was appropriate — those are distinct legal questions that can be pursued independently.