## Facts

- L.O., a preschool-aged child, showed early signs consistent with autism spectrum disorder, including severe social-communication and language difficulties, and received early-intervention therapies before age three.
- When responsibility shifted to the local school district at age three, the district conducted an initial special-education assessment focused primarily on speech and language.
- A school psychologist observed L.O. briefly (about 30 minutes) but did not administer standardized autism tools, conduct formal testing, or perform structured parent interviews.
- The district did not conduct autism-specific or social-emotional assessments and classified L.O. only as having a speech or language impairment, developing IEPs based on that classification.
- Over the next two school years, L.O. continued to show behaviors associated with autism and made limited progress.
- The district had notice of an outside professional’s report provisionally identifying an autism-spectrum condition but did not treat it as requiring an IDEA-compliant autism evaluation.
- The parents sought an independent evaluation, withdrew L.O., and filed an IDEA due-process complaint alleging failure to evaluate suspected autism and resulting denial of FAPE for the 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 school years.
- An ALJ and the district court ruled for the district; the parents appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district violated the IDEA by failing to conduct a sufficiently comprehensive evaluation in all areas of suspected disability, including autism, given notice of autism-related signs and a provisional diagnosis.
2. Whether that evaluation failure was a procedural violation that denied FAPE by impeding appropriate IEP development, significantly impeding parental participation, or depriving educational benefit.
3. Whether the district could rely on an outside clinical report in place of conducting its own IDEA-compliant educational assessment.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed in part and remanded for determination of appropriate relief.
- The court held the district violated IDEA evaluation requirements by not assessing L.O. for autism despite clear notice triggering a duty to evaluate that suspected disability.
- The court held the evaluation failure was not harmless; it denied FAPE for the 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 school years because it deprived the IEP team of essential information and significantly impeded parental participation.
- The court held outside clinical reports may be considered but cannot substitute for the district’s obligation to perform an IDEA-compliant evaluation designed for educational planning.
- The court declined to defer to the ALJ where the analysis did not properly apply the legal requirement to assess all areas of suspected disability.

## Legal Principles

- IDEA evaluations must be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all special-education and related-service needs, including needs not commonly linked to the eligibility category initially selected.
- A district with notice that a child may have a disability must assess the child in all areas of suspected disability; brief informal observation is not an IDEA “assessment.”
- IDEA requires use of varied assessment tools and strategies, prohibits reliance on a single measure, and requires evaluation by trained and knowledgeable personnel.
- A procedural IDEA violation denies FAPE when it (a) impedes the child’s right to FAPE, (b) significantly impedes parents’ participation in decisionmaking, or (c) causes a deprivation of educational benefits.
- Districts bear the responsibility to evaluate and identify students with disabilities under IDEA; outside reports not prepared under IDEA procedures do not discharge that duty.

## Conclusion

The court held that, once the district had reason to suspect autism, it was required to conduct an IDEA-compliant autism evaluation; its failure to do so materially compromised IEP development and parental participation and therefore denied FAPE for two school years, warranting remand for a remedy determination.


Timothy O. v. Paso Robles Unified Sch. Dist., 822 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2016)