Schimmel by Schimmel v. Spillane

• Decision Date: 27 May 1987
• Docket Number: 86-3041 and 86-3044,Nos. 86-3033,s. 86-3033
• Citation: 819 F.2d 477
• Parties: 39 Ed. Law Rep. 999 John SCHIMMEL, a minor, by his parents and next friends John & Betty SCHIMMEL and John Schimmel, Betty Schimmel, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert SPILLANE, Supt. Fairfax Co. Public Schools; Fairfax Co. Bd. of Education; John Davis, Supt. Va. Dept. of Education, Defendants-Appellees, The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Virginia, Inc., Amicus Curiae. John SCHIMMEL, a minor, by his parents and next friends John & Betty SCHIMMEL and John Schimmel, Betty Schimmel, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Robert SPILLANE, Supt. Fairfax Co. Public Schools; Fairfax Co. Bd. of Education, Defendants-Appellants, and John Davis, Supt. Va. Dept. of Education, Defendant. John SCHIMMEL, a minor, by his parents and next friends John & Betty SCHIMMEL and John Schimmel, Betty Schimmel, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John DAVIS, Supt. Va. Dept. of Education, Defendant-Appellant, and Robert Spillane, Supt. Fairfax Co. Public Schools; Fairfax Co. Bd. of Education, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 477

819 F.2d 477

39 Ed. Law Rep. 999

John SCHIMMEL, a minor, by his parents and next friends John

& Betty SCHIMMEL and John Schimmel, Betty

Schimmel, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert SPILLANE, Supt. Fairfax Co. Public Schools; Fairfax

Co. Bd. of Education; John Davis, Supt. Va. Dept.

of Education, Defendants-Appellees,

The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Virginia,

Inc., Amicus Curiae.

John SCHIMMEL, a minor, by his parents and next friends John

& Betty SCHIMMEL and John Schimmel, Betty

Schimmel, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Robert SPILLANE, Supt. Fairfax Co. Public Schools; Fairfax

Co. Bd. of Education, Defendants-Appellants,

and

John Davis, Supt. Va. Dept. of Education, Defendant.

John SCHIMMEL, a minor, by his parents and next friends John

& Betty SCHIMMEL and John Schimmel, Betty

Schimmel, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John DAVIS, Supt. Va. Dept. of Education, Defendant-Appellant, and Robert Spillane, Supt. Fairfax Co. Public Schools; Fairfax

Co. Bd. of Education, Defendants.

Nos. 86-3033, 86-3041 and 86-3044.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Jan. 5, 1987.

Decided May 27, 1987.

Matthew Bogin (Beth Goodman, Bogin & Eig, Washington, D.C., on brief), for Schimmel.

Grady Kimel Carlson (Thomas J. Cawley, Hunton & Williams, Fairfax, Va., on brief), for Spillane and the Fairfax County School Bd.

Joan W. Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va. (Phyllis Carole Katz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., on brief), for Davis.

Frank M. Feibelman, Kelley H. Brandt, Richmond, Va., on brief, for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Virginia, Inc. on behalf of plaintiffs-appellants John Schimmel, et al.

Before WINTER, Chief Judge, ERVIN, Circuit Judge, and KAUFMAN, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

ERVIN, Circuit Judge:

This case presents questions arising under the Education of the Handicapped Act, 20 U.S.C. Secs. 1400 et seq. (1982) (hereinafter the "EHA" or the "Act"). Plaintiff, a handicapped child who sues by his parents and next friends, appeals from the district court's judgment in favor of defendants Robert Spillane, Superintendent of the Fairfax County Public Schools; the Fairfax County Board of Education; and John Davis, Superintendent of the Virginia Department of Education (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "school system"). The school system cross-appeals the district court's denial of its motion to dismiss this suit as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss and its judgment in favor of the school system.

I.

Plaintiff John Schimmel, Jr., ("Jim") is a fifteen-year-old boy with multiple handicaps, including learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, and seizure disorder. Jim and his parents, John and Betty Schimmel, moved to Fairfax County, Virginia in 1979. From that time until June 1984, Jim was enrolled at private day schools for learning disabled students. These schools were approved by the Virginia Department of Education as special education schools, and the school system paid the cost of Jim's education at them.

In 1984 it became apparent that Jim needed to be placed in a residential school. The Little Keswick School near Charlottesville, Virginia, offered to enroll Jim for the coming school year. Little Keswick is a private residential school which is approved by the Virginia Department of Education as a school for the handicapped. The school system agreed to pay the cost of Jim's education at Little Keswick for the 1984-85 school year.

Jim's parents declined to enroll him at Little Keswick. Instead, they wished to enroll Jim at the East Hill Farm and School in Andover, Vermont, and they requested that the school system pay the cost of Jim's education at East Hill. East Hill has never been approved by the Virginia Department of Education as a school for handicapped children. At the time the Schimmels sought to have the school system place Jim at East Hill and fund his education there, East Hill was not approved by the Vermont Department of Education as any type of school. ¹ The school system declined to pay for Jim's education at East Hill, but the Schimmels nonetheless enrolled Jim at East Hill in the fall of 1984.

After the school system refused to place Jim at East Hill and fund his education there, the Schimmels sought review of the school system's decision in a state administrative due process hearing conducted pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(b)(2). This hearing resulted in a decision adverse to the Schimmels, which they appealed to a state reviewing officer pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(c). The state reviewing officer ruled that, contrary to the Schimmels' contentions, the school system was not required to place Jim at East Hill and fund his education there.

Nearly eight months after the decision of the state reviewing officer, the Schimmels filed suit against the school system in the district court pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(e)(2). They alleged that the school system had denied Jim a free appropriate education in violation of the EHA. The Schimmels sought to require the school system to place Jim at East Hill and fund his education there. Additionally, they sought reimbursement of the costs they had already incurred pursuant to their unilateral decision to enroll Jim at East Hill.

The school system moved to dismiss the Schimmels' complaint on the ground that it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The district court denied this motion. After a trial on the merits, the district court entered judgment for the school system. Schimmel v. Spillane, 630 F.Supp. 159 (E.D.Va.1986).

II.

We turn first to the statute of limitations issue raised in the school system's cross-appeal. For the reasons given below, we conclude that the Schimmels' complaint was not time-barred.

Under the EHA, if the parents of a handicapped child and the state agency responsible for providing education to the handicapped child disagree about the availability of an appropriate education for the child or the question of financial responsibility, the disagreement is to be resolved in state administrative due process hearings. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(b)(2) and (c); 34 C.F.R. Sec. 300.403(b) (1986). Under 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(e)(2), a party aggrieved by a decision rendered in such a hearing may institute a civil action in a United States District Court or in a State court of competent jurisdiction. The EHA provides no statute of limitations applicable to the filing of such actions.

The school system argued below and on appeal that the limitations period of the Virginia Administrative Process Act ("APA"), Va.Sup.Ct.R. 2A:2 and 2A:4, should be applied to bar the Schimmels' suit. In actions brought under the Virginia APA, a party appealing from the decision of a state agency must file a notice of appeal with the agency within thirty days of the entry of a final order in the case. Va.Sup.Ct.R. 2A:2. Within thirty days after filing the notice of appeal, the party must file a petition for appeal with the clerk of the court to which the appeal is taken. Va.Sup.Ct.R. 2A:4. Thus, in actions to which the limitations period of the Virginia APA applies, a party aggrieved by a state agency decision must decide whether to pursue an appeal within thirty days after entry of the agency's decision, although the party has a period of sixty days within which to file suit.

If the limitations period of the Virginia APA were applied in this case, the Schimmels' suit would be barred, because it was filed approximately eight months after termination of the state administrative due process proceedings instituted by the Schimmels pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(b)(2) and (c). The district court, however, applied the one-year statute of limitations set forth in Va.Code Sec. 8.01-248 (1984), and ruled that the Schimmels' suit was not time-barred. This one-year statute of limitations applies to all personal actions for which no limitations period is otherwise prescribed. Id.

We note preliminarily that a number of other circuits have considered the proper statute of limitations to be applied in suits such as this one, which are brought in federal court pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(e)(2). Often, as in this case, federal courts must decide whether to apply a very short limitations period applicable to appeals from state agency rulings, and results in these cases have not been consistent. Compare Janzen v. Knox County Board of Education, 790 F.2d 484 (6th Cir.1986) (rejecting sixty-day statute of limitations for appeals from state administrative agency rulings and applying three-year statute of limitations); Scokin v. Texas, 723 F.2d 432 (5th Cir.1984) (rejecting thirty-day statute of limitations for appeals from state agencies to state courts and applying two-year statute of limitations for tort claims); and Tokarcik v. Forest Hills School District, 665 F.2d 443 (3d Cir.1981) (rejecting thirty-day statute of limitations and applying two-year statute of limitations), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1121, 102 S.Ct. 3508, 73 L.Ed.2d 1383 (1982) with Adler v. Education Department, 760 F.2d 454 (2d Cir.1985) (applying four-month limitations period for appeals from state administrative agency decisions) and Department of Education v. Carl D., 695 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir.1983) (applying thirty-day limitations period of Hawaii Administrative Procedures Act). Within this circuit, there is a similar split of authority. Compare Kirchqessner v. Davis, 632 F.Supp. 616 (W.D.Va.1986) (rejecting Virginia's thirty-day statute of limitations for appeals from state agency decisions and applying Virginia's catchall limitations period of one year) with Thomas v. Staats, 633 F.Supp. 797 (S.D.W.Va.1985) (applying four-month statute of limitations for West Virginia's writ of certiorari).

In determining the proper statute of limitations to...