963 F.2d 847 (6th Cir. 1992), 91-5880, Krichinsky By and Through Krichinsky v. Knox County Schools

• Citation: 963 F.2d 847
• Party Name: Seth KRICHINSKY, By and Through his parents and next best friends, Mr. and Mrs. Alan KRICHINSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KNOX COUNTY SCHOOLS, Defendant-Appellee.
• Case Date: April 29, 1992
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 847

963 F.2d 847 (6th Cir. 1992)

Seth KRICHINSKY, By and Through his parents and next best

friends, Mr. and Mrs. Alan KRICHINSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

KNOX COUNTY SCHOOLS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 91-5880.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

April 29, 1992

Argued Feb. 14, 1992.

Page 848

Gary D. Buchanan (argued and briefed), Brentwood, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellant.

Michael W. Moyers (argued and briefed), Knoxville, Tenn., for defendant-appellee.

Before: KEITH and MARTIN, Circuit Judges; and CELEBREZZE; Senior Circuit Judge.

BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Circuit Judge.

The Krichinskys, parents of a handicapped child, appeal the district court's denial of their motion for attorney fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B) (1991). ¹

Seth Krichinsky is a handicapped child in the Knox County, Tennessee, school district. After consulting an expert recommended by the school system, Seth's parents requested that the school system place Seth in a residential program that would better meet his educational needs. Residential programs provide group-living situations with full-time supervision by a professional staff. The programs include a wide range of psychological help and counseling care. After the school system's own evaluation of Seth's needs, the school system opted against placement, offering an alternative program that did not include residential placement. The Krichinskys appealed the school system's decision to the Tennessee Department of Education.

On appeal, the administrative law judge for the Tennessee Department of Education addressed three issues: (1) whether the school system should place Seth in a residential program, and if so, whether the school system should pay for the placement, (2) whether Seth was receiving adequate speech and language instruction through the school system, and (3) whether Seth was receiving adequate occupational therapy through the school system. The administrative law judge found that while residential placement was not necessary at the time of the hearing, the school system's proposed program was insufficient and would not meet Seth's needs. The administrative law judge stated "something in addition to that which has been proposed by

Page 849

the school system is in order to help S[eth] learn how to function in his environment so that the ultimate goals earlier discussed can be obtained." The administrative law judge ordered the school system to (1) increase the amount of Seth's speech and language therapy, (2) increase the amount of Seth's occupational therapy, (3) provide an "at home" behavior management program designed by a psychologist with a Master's degree who had at least three years experience in behavior management, and (4) provide an extended day program through which Seth would receive additional "living skills" education until 5:30 p.m. each day.

The school system and the Krichinskys appealed the administrative law judge's decision to federal district court. The district court affirmed the administrative law judge's decision concerning the additional speech, language, and occupational therapy. The district court also affirmed the administrative law judge's determination that Seth should not be placed in a residential program. The district court, however, declined to adopt the administrative law judge's determination of additional specific relief. The district court stated that it was postponing an order of final relief so that the Krichinskys and the school system could meet and develop a mutually agreeable individualized education program for Seth. Following the district court's order, the Krichinskys filed a motion for attorney fees. The district court denied their motion, finding that the Krichinskys were not the prevailing party. Citing Texas State Teachers Association v. Garland Independent School District, 489 U.S. 782, 109 S.Ct. 1486, 103 L.Ed.2d 866 (1989), which held that a party has prevailed when it has succeeded on any significant issue in litigation that achieved some of the benefits the party sought in bringing the action, the district court found that the Krichinskys had not prevailed on a significant issue. In denying the Krichinskys' motion, the court found that in bringing the suit, the Krichinskys only sought residential placement for Seth. While it was not mentioned...