E.M. v. Pajaro Valley U.S.D., No. 12-15743 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseE.M., who has an auditory processing disorder or a central auditory processing disorder, through his parents, filed suit against the district alleging that E.M. had been denied a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to show that the district acted unreasonably in determining in 2005 that E.M. did not qualify for special education services under the "specific learning disability" category; the Department of Education's position that a central auditory processing disorder is eligible for consideration for benefits under the "other health impairment" category merits deference; but plaintiffs failed to show that the district acted unreasonably in not considering E.M. for benefits under the "other health impairment" category in 2005. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of relief to plaintiffs.
Court Description: Education Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment on remand in an action brought by a student, by and through his parents, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. The student’s school district determined in 2005 that, despite his learning disability of auditory processing disorder or central auditory processing disorder, the student was not eligible for special education services. In 2008, as a result of further testing procured by his parents, the school district determined that the student did qualify for special education. Shortly thereafter, he moved to another school district, which also recognized that he qualified for special education. The panel held that the student failed to show that the school district acted unreasonably in determining in 2005 that he did not qualify for special education services under the “specific learning disability” category because he lacked the required severe discrepancy between his intellectual ability and his achievement. The Department of Education, as amicus curiae, took the position that a central auditory processing disorder is eligible for consideration for benefits under the “other health impairment” category. The panel held that this position merited deference. The panel nonetheless determined that the student failed to show that the school district acted unreasonably in not considering him for benefits under the “other health impairment” category in 2005.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.