Walker Cty. School Dist. v. Bennett

• Citation: 203 F.3d 1293
• Decision Date: 16 February 2000
• Docket Number: No. 99-10140,99-10140
• Parties: (11th Cir. 2000) WALKER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Jewel Campbell, et al., Plaintiffs-Counter-defendants-Appellants, v. Jensine BENNETT, a minor, by and through her parents and legal guardians, John & Denise Bennett, John Bennett, Denise Bennett, Defendants-Counter-claimants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

Page 1293

203 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2000)

WALKER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Jewel Campbell, et al., Plaintiffs-Counter-defendants-Appellants, v. Jensine BENNETT, a minor, by and through her parents and legal guardians, John & Denise Bennett, John Bennett, Denise Bennett, Defendants-Counter-claimants-Appellees.

No. 99-10140.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Feb. 16, 2000.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. (No. 97-00054-CV-4-HLM), Harold L. Murphy, Judge.

Before BIRCH and HULL, Circuit Judges, and HODGES^*, Senior District Judge.

HODGES, Senior District Judge:

This appeal involves the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the IDEA), 20 USC 1400 et seq.¹ The court is required to interpret one of the provisions of the Act that has been the subject of attention by several other circuits, but not this one.

The stated purpose of the IDEA is to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs. 20 USC 1400(d)(1)(A). To effectuate that purpose federal funds are made available to state and local educational entities² which are required through an evaluation process to identify children with disabilities³ and to develop for each disabled child an annual individualized education program or IEP.⁴ If the parents of a disabled child are dissatisfied with their child's IEP, the statute requires the educational agency to afford them an impartial due process hearing.⁵

Any party aggrieved by the result of the administrative proceedings in the state system has the right, under 1415(I)(2), to bring a civil action in the district court, and In any action brought under this paragraph, the court-

(i)shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings;

(ii)shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party; and

(iii)basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate.

The Walker County School District was aggrieved by the result of administrative proceedings initiated under the Act by the parents of Jensine Bennett. The Administrative Law Judge required the School District to reimburse the Bennetts for the cost of Jensine's private schooling during the 1995-96 school year. The School District then brought this action in the district court under 1415(I)(2) of the Act seeking review and reversal of that administrative decision. Invoking the statutory mandate that the court "shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party," the School District proposed that the district court hear a substantial volume of testimonial and documentary evidence in addition to the record of the administrative proceedings developed in the state system. The district court refused to receive most of that evidence and, acting on the existing record, proceeded to affirm the administrative decision. This appeal followed.

Two issues are presented. First is the question whether the district court erred in refusing to receive and consider the evidence the School District wished to offer in addition to the record of the administrative proceedings.⁶ The second issue is whether the district court erred in its judgment on the merits affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge.⁷

We affirm the district court in both respects and conclude that we need to discuss only the evidentiary question as an issue of first impression in this circuit.

I

Jensine Bennett was born on September 15, 1988 and was eight years old when this suit was brought in March, 1997. She was identified as an autistic child in 1991 when she was three years old. Jensine and her parents lived at the time, and still live, in Walker County, Georgia. The Walker County School District determined that Jensine, because of her autism, was a child with a disability and was qualified for special educational services under the IDEA. An individualized educational program (IEP) was prepared and implemented for her without formal dispute during Jensine's preschool years, 1991-92 through 1994-95.

In her kindergarten class during the 1994-95 school year, Jensine sporadically engaged in self abusive acts, experienced other episodes of emotional outbursts, and lacked focus on classroom tasks. In the spring of 1995 the School District prepared a proposed IEP for Jensine with respect to the 1995-96 school year. Meetings were held in June and August, 1995, but the proposed IEP was rejected by the Bennetts because, in their view, among other things, it did not provide an extended program during the summer months, and did not afford occupational therapy services or sufficient one-on-one classroom assistance to cope with Jensine's autistic frustration. The Bennetts thus declined the School District's 1995-96 IEP, withdrew Jensine from the District's school system, enrolled her in a private school for autistic children, and gave notice to the District that they intended to seek reimbursement of the costs of that private schooling.⁸

In July, 1996, the Bennetts requested a due process hearing under the IDEA to press their claim for reimbursement of the expense of Jensine's education during the 1995-96 school year.⁹ This placed in issue whether the School District's proposed IEP for Jensine during that year was sufficient to provide her a "free appropriate public education" as required by the Act, 1400(d)(1)(A).¹⁰

The Administrative Law Judge assigned to hear the case under Georgia's statutory scheme held a two day hearing in December, 1996. Extensive documentary evidence was presented and the testimony of both lay and expert witnesses was heard. The ALJ issued his decision in February, 1997. He found, as contended by the Bennetts, that the 1995-96 IEP prepared for Jensine by the School District did not comply with the IDEA as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Rowley and did not fulfill Jensine's right to a free appropriate public education. Specifically, the IEP was found to be deficient because it failed to provide (1) behavior management; (2) occupational therapy; (3) extended services for twelve months; and (4) communication aids. The Bennetts were therefore awarded the costs of Jensine's private school education for the 1995-96 school year.

II

In the district court the School District moved for an evidentiary hearing to present "additional evidence." The court required a proffer of the evidence the School District wished to present. The School District responded by listing the names of nineteen witnesses (whose testimony was variously offered through the means of personal appearance, depositions or affidavits), plus three categories of tangible or documentary evidence. The district court then reviewed each item of the proffer, separately and individually. The court found that five of the witnesses had already testified to the same general subject matter at the administrative hearing, and that the proposed testimony of several of the remaining witnesses was already in the record in the form of their written reports or the testimony of other witnesses who had described their findings, so that, in either case, the proposed testimony before the district court would be cumulative. In two instances the court found the proffered testimony to be irrelevant. The court also found that all of the proffered witnesses who had not already testified were available at the time of the administrative hearing; that no explanation was given for not calling them at that time; and that permitting them to be called in the district court would raise the dual concerns of unfairly permitting the parties to reserve their best evidence for trial while essentially converting an administrative review proceeding into a trial de novo. Thus, with two minor exceptions, the district court concluded that the admission of any of the additional evidence in the judicial review proceedings would not only be cumulative but would undercut or unduly minimize the statutory role of the administrative process thereby resulting in an unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources. In the end, therefore, the district court excluded all of the School District's proffered evidence except for a portion of the deposition testimony of one witness and some additional documentary evidence.

III

Ordinarily, one expects judicial review of an administrative decision to be limited to the record before the administrative body, and for the court to be required to affirm if substantial evidence in the record supports the administrative determination. See Capistrano Unified School District v. Wartenberg, 59 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir.1995). But the IDEA provision for judicial review has been described as "puzzling" (id. at 898) and "somewhat confusing." Jefferson County Board of Education v. Alabama Department of Education, 853 F.2d 853, 856 (11th Cir.1988), because it differs from the norm in a way that produces three distinct issues: (1) How much deference, if any, should be given to the administrative decision if additional evidence may be taken and the standard to be applied is the preponderance of the evidence? (2) What standard should be applied in deciding what "additional" evidence, if any, should be admitted in the district court proceeding? And (3) What is the appropriate procedural mechanism to be implemented in the district court in bringing the case before the court for a final decision?¹¹

The first of these issues was the focus of the Supreme Court's decision in Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982), and has since received the attention of this Court in Jefferson County Board of Education v. Alabama Department of Education, 853 F.2d 853 (11th Cir.1988), and Doe v. Alabama Department of Education, 915 F.2d 651 (11th Cir.1990). Essentially, the law is established by Rowley that the administrative...