## Facts

- E.M., an elementary student in Pajaro Valley Unified School District (PVUSD), performed poorly academically despite average to above-average cognitive ability.
- His parents obtained a private psychological evaluation diagnosing a learning disability and recommending special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
- After the parents requested an IDEA assessment, PVUSD evaluated E.M. and repeatedly found him ineligible for special education, including after reevaluations.
- An otolaryngologist later diagnosed E.M. with an auditory processing disorder.
- The parents filed an IDEA due-process complaint with the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH); an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upheld PVUSD’s non-eligibility determination.
- After the ALJ decision, the parents obtained a further psychological report concluding E.M. qualified for IDEA services and opining PVUSD should have found him eligible based on earlier data.
- In a civil action challenging the ALJ decision, the district court excluded the post-hearing psychological report and affirmed the ALJ.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C) by refusing to admit the parents’ post-hearing psychological report as “additional evidence.”
2. Whether the district court erred by failing to address an alternative IDEA eligibility theory that E.M.’s auditory processing disorder could qualify as an “other health impairment” (OHI).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court held the district court erred by excluding the post-hearing psychological report without evaluating its relevance and probative value as potential “additional evidence” in an IDEA civil action.
- The court held the district court failed to address the OHI-based theory tied to E.M.’s auditory processing disorder and required consideration of that claim on remand.

## Legal Principles

- In an IDEA civil action, the district court must receive the administrative record and must hear “additional evidence” at a party’s request, subject to discretionary limits to prevent undue delay or cumulative proof. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C).
- The discretion to admit or exclude additional evidence must be exercised through an assessment of whether the evidence is relevant, non-cumulative, and helpful to determining IDEA compliance.
- Judicial review in an IDEA civil action is not confined to the administrative record in the manner of ordinary appellate review; post-hearing evidence may be admissible if it assists the court’s IDEA compliance determination.
- IDEA eligibility analysis must address potentially applicable disability categories reasonably raised by the evidence; failure to address an asserted OHI theory may require remand.
- An auditory processing disorder may implicate OHI eligibility depending on whether it results in limited strength, vitality, or alertness that adversely affects educational performance, requiring case-specific analysis.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit required further proceedings because the district court did not properly evaluate a requested item of additional evidence under the IDEA’s evidentiary standard and did not address an asserted OHI eligibility theory based on auditory processing disorder, warranting remand for those determinations.


E.M. ex rel. E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unified Sch. Dist. Off. of Admin. Hearings, 652 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2011)