Parini v. Missoula County High School, Dist. No. 1

• Decision Date: 03 July 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-696,96-696
• Citation: 944 P.2d 199,284 Mont. 14
• Parties: , 121 Ed. Law Rep. 326 Brian PARINI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MISSOULA COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL, DISTRICT NO. 1, and the following agents/employees, Mike Fredrickson, Mark Wright, Nick Carter, Jay Christopher, Ginger Bilile, Jerry Pease, Dick Guiliani, Rod Bates, Tony Marino, Lora Mehrer, Teddy Maloof, and John Frederikson, Defendants & Respondents.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

Page 199

944 P.2d 199

284 Mont. 14, 121 Ed. Law Rep. 326

Brian PARINI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MISSOULA COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL, DISTRICT NO. 1, and the

following agents/employees, Mike Fredrickson, Mark Wright,

Nick Carter, Jay Christopher, Ginger Bilile, Jerry Pease,

Dick Guiliani, Rod Bates, Tony Marino, Lora Mehrer, Teddy

Maloof, and John Frederikson, Defendants & Respondents.

No. 96-696.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs May 1, 1997.

Decided July 3, 1997.

Mark E. Jones, Attorney at Law, Missoula, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Molly Shepherd, Worden, Thane & Haines, Missoula, for Defendants & Respondents.

TRIEWEILER, Justice.

The appellant, Brian Parini, filed a complaint in the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District in Missoula County in which he: (1) appealed the Office of Public Instruction's determination that he was not denied a free appropriate public education; and (2) asserted an independent claim in which he alleged that the respondents, Missoula County High School District No. 1 and twelve of its employees, negligently misplaced and misdiagnosed him as a special education student. The District Court affirmed the Office of Public Instruction's decision and dismissed the negligent misplacement and misdiagnosis claim. Parini appeals. We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

The following issues are presented on appeal:

1. Did the District Court err when it affirmed the Office of Public Instruction's determination that Brian Parini was not denied a free appropriate public education?

2. Did the District Court err when it dismissed Brian Parini's negligent misdiagnosis and misplacement claim?

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In 1989, when he was in the seventh grade, Brian Parini was diagnosed with a learning disability. He had previously been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder. On that basis, school officials determined that he was eligible for special education services pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

The IDEA provides that disabled children are entitled to receive a free appropriate public education ("FAPE"), see 20 U.S.C. § 1400(c); mandates that an individualized education plan ("IEP") be formulated for each eligible child, see 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(18)(D); and sets forth procedural safeguards and remedial provisions to ensure that disabled children receive adequate educational opportunities, see 20 U.S.C. § 1415.

In 1994, Rose Parini, Brian's mother, filed a petition with the Office of Public Instruction ("OPI") pursuant to the IDEA. The petition alleged that school officials failed to properly test and evaluate Brian and that, as a result, he was denied a FAPE. After a due process hearing, however, the OPI determined that he was not denied a FAPE.

Parini subsequently filed a complaint in the District Court in which he: (1)appealed the OPI's decision; and (2) asserted an independent cause of action in which he alleged that the School District and twelve of its employees negligently misdiagnosed and misplaced him as a special education student. He claimed, therefore, that he is entitled to relief pursuant to the IDEA's remedial provisions and to compensatory damages. The District Court dismissed Parini's negligent misdiagnosis and misplacement claim and affirmed the OPI's decision.

ISSUE 1

Did the District Court err when it affirmed the Office of Public Instruction's determination that Brian Parini was not denied a free appropriate public education?

Rose Parini filed a petition with the OPI in which she contended that Brian was denied a FAPE. After an extensive hearing, the OPI concluded that the "IDEA does not require a school district to maximize the potential of a child with a disability but only to assure that the child receives an appropriate education reasonably calculated to enable him or her to receive educational benefit." Additionally, the OPI made the following findings:

7. The absence of a complete three-year comprehensive re-evaluation of [Brian] constitutes a procedural flaw or inadequacy under IDEA. [Brian's]own conduct is likely to have caused or contributed to the inadequacy.

8. The absence of a ... re-evaluation did not result in [Brian's] loss of educational opportunity. His IEP's continued to be constructed on informed, particularized assessments of his needs, abilities and performance. The October 1993 WORC Center evaluation and the July 1994 evaluation of Dr. Wollersheim establish that no causal link exists between the absence of the re-evaluation and the educational opportunity afforded [Brian]. There is no evidence that his IEP's would have been constructed differently if a complete three-year re-evaluation had been conducted in 1991-1992.

9. The absence of a ... re-evaluation also did not materially infringe upon [Rose Parini's] opportunity to participate in the process of formulating IEP's for [Brian]. With the assistance of experts, advocates and attorneys, as well as her own extensive research, she has played a pivotal role in the development of [Brian's] IEP's. In particular, she and [Brian's] advocate were instrumental in formulating the November 30, 1993 IEP....

On that basis, the OPI determined that Parini received an educational benefit and that, therefore, the School District did not deny him a FAPE.

Parini subsequently appealed the OPI's decision to the District Court. The court determined that it "can set aside OPI's ruling only after giving due weight to the administrative disposition and finding the aggrieved party has proved by a preponderance of the evidence the administrative disposition was erroneous." After a hearing, the court made the following findings and conclusions:

[Brian] contends that the School District failed to provide a FAPE because it did not complete a comprehensive evaluation. The School District argues that evaluations were not completed because [Brian] was uncooperative. Although [Brian] argues that placing him with emotionally disturbed students denied him a FAPE, there is no evidence to support this claim. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the School District made numerous good faith efforts to create an IEP for Brian, but members of the team were never able to come to an agreement with [Brian and Rose]. Moreover, the testimony at the administrative hearing showed that [Brian] received 'some education benefit', which is the substantive standard for FAPE. Alamo Heights Indep. School Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 790 F.2d 1153 (5th Cir.1986). The preponderance of the evidence also shows[Rose] participated extensively in the IEP formulation process. Therefore,[Brian] has failed to show that the administrative disposition was erroneous.

Parini maintains that the District Court erred when it affirmed the OPI's decision. On appeal to this Court, he claims, as he did before the District Court, that the School District: (1) failed to properly test and evaluate him; (2) improperly placed him with emotionally disturbed students; and (3) failed to administer a comprehensive three-year evaluation pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1412(5)(C) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.534. On that basis, he asserts that he was denied a FAPE.

The IDEA entitles disabled children to a FAPE. See 20 U.S.C. § 1400(c). According to the United States Supreme Court, a FAPE "consists of educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child 'to benefit' from the instruction." Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. Rowley (1982),458 U.S. 176, 188-89, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3042, 73 L.Ed.2d 690, 701. Moreover, the Court concluded that the IDEA does not obligate a state to maximize each disabled child's potential; rather, the IDEA requires a "basic floor of opportunity," "sufficient to confer some educational benefit upon the handicapped child." Rowley, 458 U.S. at 200-01, 102 S.Ct. at 3048.

The IDEA's "basic floor of opportunity" is achieved for each individual child through: (1) the completion of an evaluation every three years pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1412(5)(C) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.534; and (2) the establishment of an IEP pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(18)(D). An IEP is a written plan which incorporates the placement decisions made by the child's IEP team of school authorities, the child's parents, and other knowledgeable persons. See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(20). Additionally, Congress devised procedural safeguards and remedial provisions to ensure full parental participation and the proper resolution of substantive disagreements. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415.

Furthermore, the IDEA, specifically 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e), governs judicial review of the OPI's decisions:

(1) A decision made in a [due process] hearing conducted [by a state educational agency] shall be final, except that any party involved in such hearing may appeal such decision under the provisions of ... paragraph (2)of this subsection....

(2) Any party aggrieved by the findings and decision made [in a due process hearing conducted by a state educational agency].. shall have the right to bring a civil action with respect to the complaint presented pursuant to this section, which action may be brought in any State court of competent jurisdiction.... In any action brought under this paragraph the court shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate.

In Rowley, the Supreme Court interpreted 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e), and concluded that reviewing courts are required to engage in the following two-part inquiry:

First, has the State complied with the procedures set forth in [IDEA]? And second, is the individualized educational program developed through the Act's procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits? If these...