## Facts

- T.D., a child diagnosed with ADHD, attended private schools after difficulties in non-specialized settings.
- After T.D. was dismissed from a parochial school, his mother contacted the public school district about special-education services; the district did not promptly initiate an IDEA evaluation.
- T.D.’s parents enrolled him in a private day school and paid for a full-time aide.
- The parents requested an IDEA due-process hearing seeking evaluation and reimbursement.
- A state hearing officer ordered the district to perform an evaluation; the district evaluated T.D., found him eligible, and proposed an IEP with public-school placement and services.
- The parents continued the hearing seeking reimbursement for private tuition, the aide, and related costs.
- The hearing officer awarded reimbursement for some expenses (including the aide and certain costs), denied tuition reimbursement (finding the private placement inappropriate under IDEA), and ordered a specified public-school placement with services.
- The parents filed a federal IDEA action; the parties later settled substantive claims (including reimbursement and a public program placement), expressly leaving attorney’s fees and expert fees for the court.

## Issues

1. Whether Buckhannon’s definition of “prevailing party” applies to attorney-fee awards under IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B).
2. Whether the parents were “prevailing parties” where they obtained administrative orders but later resolved substantive claims through a private settlement.
3. Whether IDEA authorizes reimbursement of expert witness fees as part of recoverable “costs” or fees.

## Decision

- Held that Buckhannon applies to IDEA’s fee-shifting provision; “prevailing party” requires a legally enforceable, adjudicatory alteration of the parties’ relationship, not merely voluntary change.
- Held that the parents were prevailing parties only to the extent they obtained enforceable administrative relief (e.g., the ordered evaluation and ordered reimbursements), not based solely on the private settlement or on unsuccessful claims.
- Reversed the award of expert witness fees because IDEA does not authorize them.
- Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for recalculation of attorney’s fees consistent with partial success.

## Legal Principles

- Buckhannon governs IDEA “prevailing party” determinations: the party must obtain relief carrying judicial or administrative imprimatur that materially alters the legal relationship.
- Enforceable IDEA administrative orders (including hearing-officer orders compelling evaluations, services, or reimbursements) can confer prevailing-party status.
- A private settlement, without being embodied in a consent decree or comparable enforceable order, does not by itself confer prevailing-party status.
- Attorney’s fees must be reasonable and reflect degree of success; fees should be reduced to exclude time attributable to distinct unsuccessful claims.
- IDEA’s fee provision does not permit recovery of expert witness fees absent explicit statutory authorization.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit applied Buckhannon to IDEA fee awards, recognized prevailing-party status only for the enforceable relief obtained through the administrative process, required a reduction of attorney’s fees to match limited success, and disallowed expert witness fees under IDEA.


T.D. v. LaGrange Sch. Dist. No. 102, 349 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2003)