STANDARD OF REVIEW
A district court's review of a hearing officer's decision is virtually de novo. Teague Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Todd L., 999 F.2d 127, 131 (5th Cir. 1993). In IDEA cases that reach the Fifth Circuit, questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact pertaining to the district court’s decision are reviewed de novo. R.P. v. Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist., 703 F.3d 801, 808 (5th Cir. 2012). The appeal at bar is a question of law and a mixed question of law and fact and thus, this Court’s reviews de novo as a mixed question of law and fact the district court's decisions regarding whether K.W. was a “parentally-placed” private school student, whether the district court erred in creating a new category of students in private school, …show more content…
Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. V.P., 582 F.3d 576, 583 (5th Cir. 2009) and Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist., 118 F.3d at 252. (5th Cir. 1997). The determination of placement and IDEA compliance require this Court to interpret the federal IDEA as it applies to the underlying facts for clear error. Although the IDEA directs the Court to give “due weight” to a hearing officer's findings, the statute does not state that the Court must defer to those findings when its own review of the evidence indicates that the hearing officer erroneously assessed the facts or erroneously applied the law to the facts. Todd L., 999 F.2d at 131. The IDEA at 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2) allows this Court to receive evidence in addition to that put forth at the administrative hearing and to weigh the additional evidence equally. This Court only owes deference to the hearing officer's factual findings. This Court is not bound by the legal conclusions drawn from those findings. See Social Security Board v. Nierotko, 327 U.S. 358, 66 S. Ct. 637 (1946); Alex R. v. Forrestville Valley Comm. Unit Sch. Dist, 375 F.3d 603, 611-12 (7th Cir. 2004); Dale M. v. Board of Educ., 237 F.3d 813, 817 (7th Cir. 2001); McLaughlin v. Holt Public Sch. Bd. Of Educ. 320 F. 3d 663 (6th Cir.
A district court's review of a hearing officer's decision is virtually de novo. Teague Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Todd L., 999 F.2d 127, 131 (5th Cir. 1993). In IDEA cases that reach the Fifth Circuit, questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact pertaining to the district court’s decision are reviewed de novo. R.P. v. Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist., 703 F.3d 801, 808 (5th Cir. 2012). The appeal at bar is a question of law and a mixed question of law and fact and thus, this Court’s reviews de novo as a mixed question of law and fact the district court's decisions regarding whether K.W. was a “parentally-placed” private school student, whether the district court erred in creating a new category of students in private school, …show more content…
Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. V.P., 582 F.3d 576, 583 (5th Cir. 2009) and Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist., 118 F.3d at 252. (5th Cir. 1997). The determination of placement and IDEA compliance require this Court to interpret the federal IDEA as it applies to the underlying facts for clear error. Although the IDEA directs the Court to give “due weight” to a hearing officer's findings, the statute does not state that the Court must defer to those findings when its own review of the evidence indicates that the hearing officer erroneously assessed the facts or erroneously applied the law to the facts. Todd L., 999 F.2d at 131. The IDEA at 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2) allows this Court to receive evidence in addition to that put forth at the administrative hearing and to weigh the additional evidence equally. This Court only owes deference to the hearing officer's factual findings. This Court is not bound by the legal conclusions drawn from those findings. See Social Security Board v. Nierotko, 327 U.S. 358, 66 S. Ct. 637 (1946); Alex R. v. Forrestville Valley Comm. Unit Sch. Dist, 375 F.3d 603, 611-12 (7th Cir. 2004); Dale M. v. Board of Educ., 237 F.3d 813, 817 (7th Cir. 2001); McLaughlin v. Holt Public Sch. Bd. Of Educ. 320 F. 3d 663 (6th Cir.