## Facts

- Marc V. was a young student with disabilities in a Texas public school district and was evaluated for special education services in 2002.
- The district identified Marc as eligible based on speech impairment and non-categorical early childhood disabilities and developed multiple IEPs providing placement and related services, including speech therapy.
- Marc’s parents disputed the adequacy of the services, placement, and the district’s response to behavioral and emotional needs, and later withdrew Marc and sought homebound instruction based on an outside physician’s PTSD diagnosis.
- The parents requested a Texas administrative due process hearing in 2004, alleging denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) over multiple years.
- The administrative proceeding produced a large record (over 140 exhibits, extensive witness testimony, and a record exceeding 1,400 pages), and the hearing officer ruled for the district.
- The parents filed a federal action appealing under IDEA and also asserted claims under § 1983, Section 504, and the ADA, seeking damages and other relief.
- In federal court, the parents sought to add nine witnesses and six exhibits beyond the administrative record; the district moved for summary judgment and to exclude the proposed new evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the district provided Marc a FAPE under IDEA for the period properly before the court, including whether the IEPs were reasonably calculated to confer a meaningful educational benefit.
2. Whether IDEA claims based on events occurring before August 13, 2003 were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
3. Whether claims based on events after August 13, 2004 were barred for failure to exhaust IDEA administrative remedies.
4. Whether the court should admit additional evidence beyond the administrative record in the IDEA civil action.
5. Whether the parents could maintain claims under Section 504, the ADA, and § 1983 based on the same core educational allegations.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for the school district and affirmed the administrative decision on the IDEA merits for the timely, exhausted period (described as August 13, 2003 to August 13, 2004).
- The court held the district’s IEPs complied with IDEA and were reasonably calculated to provide meaningful educational benefit, and that any asserted procedural violations did not amount to a denial of FAPE absent substantive harm.
- The court dismissed claims based on events before August 13, 2003 as time-barred under the limitations period applied to IDEA claims.
- The court dismissed claims based on events after August 13, 2004 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- The court largely excluded the parents’ proposed additional witnesses and exhibits, finding the proffered material cumulative, irrelevant, or available with due diligence during the administrative hearing.
- The court entered judgment for the district on the Section 504, ADA, and § 1983 claims, finding insufficient basis for liability beyond the rejected IDEA theories.

## Legal Principles

- In an IDEA civil action, a court reviews the administrative record while giving “due weight” to the hearing officer’s findings and determines whether the preponderance of the evidence supports compliance with IDEA.
- An IEP satisfies IDEA’s substantive requirement if it is reasonably calculated to provide meaningful educational benefit; the statute does not require the best possible program.
- Procedural violations do not establish denial of FAPE without a showing of substantive harm, such as loss of educational opportunity or serious interference with meaningful parental participation.
- IDEA claims are subject to a limitations period; claims outside the applicable period are barred even if related to the same dispute.
- IDEA requires exhaustion of administrative remedies for IDEA claims and closely related claims seeking relief for educational harm; unpresented post-hearing-period claims are generally dismissed as unexhausted.
- Although IDEA permits “additional evidence” on judicial review, supplementation is limited; courts may exclude evidence that is cumulative, irrelevant, or could have been presented in the administrative hearing with reasonable diligence.
- Section 504 and ADA claims in the school context require proof beyond an IDEA violation, including disability-based discrimination; § 1983 does not provide relief where claims are duplicative of IDEA theories or unsupported by an independent constitutional deprivation.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the administrative determination that the district provided Marc a FAPE during the timely, exhausted period, enforced limitations and exhaustion to narrow the case, limited supplementation of the administrative record to non-cumulative evidence unavailable with due diligence, and rejected overlapping Section 504, ADA, and § 1983 claims for lack of a sufficient independent basis for liability.


Marc V. ex rel. Eugene V. v. N. E. Indep. Sch. Dist., 455 F. Supp. 2d 577 (W.D. Tex. 2006)