District Wins IEE Dispute: 3-Year-Old's Assessment Upheld Despite Autism Concerns

Western Placer Unified School District filed for due process to defend its February 2020 multidisciplinary assessment of a three-year-old preschooler eligible for special education under speech or language impairment. Parents sought an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense, arguing the district's occupational therapy and psychoeducation assessments were flawed, particularly regarding autism and sensory processing. The ALJ found the district's assessment legally compliant and denied the family's request for a publicly funded IEE.

What Happened

Student was a three-year-old preschooler who had previously been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder by an outside psychologist (Dr. Majestic) and received early intervention services through Alta California Regional Center. Student was eligible for special education under the category of Speech or Language Impairment. Western Placer conducted an initial multidisciplinary assessment in February 2020 covering health, speech-language, occupational therapy, and psychoeducation. Following that assessment, the district's IEP team concluded that Student did not qualify for special education under the autism category.

Parents disagreed with the assessment and sought an independent educational evaluation (IEE) — meaning an evaluation paid for by the district, conducted by an outside expert of the family's choosing. When a family requests an IEE, the district must either fund it or file for due process to defend its own assessment. Western Placer chose to file for due process. Parents challenged the occupational therapy assessment for failing to fully evaluate Student's sensory processing (including Student covering his ears when an air conditioner turned on during testing) and challenged the psychoeducation assessment for being inconsistent with the outside autism diagnosis. Parents also argued the district should have obtained records from Alta California Regional Center and conducted a Functional Behavior Assessment.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district, finding that its February 2020 multidisciplinary assessment met all legal requirements under both federal and California law.

On the occupational therapy assessment, the ALJ found that the assessor, Robinson, was properly credentialed and used multiple valid tools, including a standardized sensory rating scale completed by Mother. While Student did cover his ears when the air conditioner turned on, Parents did not present evidence that this was an abnormal response for a three-year-old or introduce any additional tools that should have been used. The omission of that observation from the report was found not to be a meaningful flaw.

On the psychoeducation assessment, the ALJ found that school psychologist Martinez used a variety of appropriate, technically sound instruments and observed Student directly. Parents pointed to the outside psychologist's finding that Student scored in the fifth percentile for verbal comprehension — but because that psychologist did not testify at the hearing, her written report was considered hearsay and could not, on its own, override Martinez's live testimony. The ALJ found Martinez's conclusions credible and supported by the evidence.

The ALJ also clarified that several of Parents' arguments — including whether Student truly qualified under the autism category, whether a Functional Behavior Assessment was needed, and whether the district missed areas of need — were outside the scope of this hearing. The only question before the ALJ was whether the multidisciplinary assessment itself was legally compliant, not whether it reached the right eligibility conclusions.

What Was Ordered

Western Placer's February 28, 2020 multidisciplinary assessment was found to be legally compliant.
Student is not entitled to a publicly funded independent educational evaluation (IEE) in the areas of health, occupational therapy, speech and language, or psychoeducation.

Why This Matters for Parents

Requesting an IEE triggers a specific legal process — and the district can fight it. When a parent disagrees with a district's assessment and requests an IEE at public expense, the district does not have to simply agree. It can file for due process to defend its own assessment. If the district wins, the family does not get a publicly funded IEE and must pay for an outside evaluation themselves if they want one.
Outside diagnoses carry less weight at a hearing if the evaluator doesn't testify. Student had an autism diagnosis from an independent psychologist, but because that psychologist did not appear at the hearing, her written report was treated as hearsay. Hearsay alone cannot form the basis of a legal finding. If you have a key outside expert, strongly consider having them appear at any hearing.
Pointing out a flaw in an assessment isn't enough — you need to show it mattered. Parents argued that the OT failed to document Student covering his ears during testing. The ALJ agreed it was omitted, but Parents didn't present evidence showing why that omission was legally significant or what additional tools should have been used. Identifying a gap is only half the battle; you also need expert testimony explaining why it changes the outcome.
Not all of your concerns will be addressed in a single hearing. The ALJ repeatedly noted that questions about the autism eligibility determination, whether a Functional Behavior Assessment was needed, and whether the district missed areas of need were all outside the scope of this particular hearing. Parents may need to pursue separate IEP disputes or due process claims to address those issues — they cannot be bundled into an IEE dispute.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district, finding that its February 2020 multidisciplinary assessment met all legal requirements under both federal and California law.

What Was Ordered

Western Placer's February 28, 2020 multidisciplinary assessment was found to be legally compliant.
Student is not entitled to a publicly funded independent educational evaluation (IEE) in the areas of health, occupational therapy, speech and language, or psychoeducation.

Why This Matters for Parents

Requesting an IEE triggers a specific legal process — and the district can fight it. When a parent disagrees with a district's assessment and requests an IEE at public expense, the district does not have to simply agree. It can file for due process to defend its own assessment. If the district wins, the family does not get a publicly funded IEE and must pay for an outside evaluation themselves if they want one.
Outside diagnoses carry less weight at a hearing if the evaluator doesn't testify. Student had an autism diagnosis from an independent psychologist, but because that psychologist did not appear at the hearing, her written report was treated as hearsay. Hearsay alone cannot form the basis of a legal finding. If you have a key outside expert, strongly consider having them appear at any hearing.
Pointing out a flaw in an assessment isn't enough — you need to show it mattered. Parents argued that the OT failed to document Student covering his ears during testing. The ALJ agreed it was omitted, but Parents didn't present evidence showing why that omission was legally significant or what additional tools should have been used. Identifying a gap is only half the battle; you also need expert testimony explaining why it changes the outcome.
Not all of your concerns will be addressed in a single hearing. The ALJ repeatedly noted that questions about the autism eligibility determination, whether a Functional Behavior Assessment was needed, and whether the district missed areas of need were all outside the scope of this particular hearing. Parents may need to pursue separate IEP disputes or due process claims to address those issues — they cannot be bundled into an IEE dispute.