top of page

N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary School District (2008)

By Kwasi Bonsu



Overview 


N.B. v Hellgate Elementary School District is a federal case in which minor C.B, along with parents N.B. and C.B, alleged that the Hellgate Elementary School District (HESD) failed to provide a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) and to fulfill its procedural responsibilities in adequately evaluating C.B. under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 


Summary 


C.B. was a young boy diagnosed with a learning disability with autistic components that produced verbal and cognitive deficits (N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary School District). Before moving to HESD in Montana, C.B’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) mandated thirteen and a half hours of speech therapy and special instruction per week. After moving to HESD in August 2003, the school adopted the same IEP; however, after observing minimal progress, the school’s speech pathologist deemed the amount of speech therapy in the plan as unnecessary and detrimental to C.B’s education. This resulted in the school conducting a meeting with C.B.'s parents in September to propose a new plan. The school conducted a diagnostic IEP, during which they evaluated and studied C.B.’s behavior for six weeks due to insufficient information about his afflictions. Subsequently, the educational services delegated to him were reduced to five hours per week (N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary School District). 


Another meeting was held in November to replace the diagnostic IEP. During which C.B’s parents suggested that autism may hold a bigger role in C.B.’s struggles than previously thought. In response, the school referred the parents to a Child Development Center (CDC) in Montana with free autism testing. In March of 2004, the CDC found that C.B. exhibited behavior consistent with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Afterwards, his instruction time was increased to twelve and a half hours (N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary School District). In May, the IEP team met again to discuss the plan for the following year and whether or not C.B. needed Extended School Year (ESY) services. The school concluded he did not, and the parents disagreed. Despite this, the school still refused to offer ESY services; consequently, C.B. was not enrolled at Hellgate the following year (N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary School District). 


Court Proceedings 


The following September, C.B’s parents filed a request for a due process hearing on the claim that the Hellgate Elementary School District, in denying C.B. extended school year services, violated IDEA and failed to provide a FAPE (N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary School District). An administrative due process hearing was held in which the appellants brought two expert witnesses who were doctors. The first stated that children with autism need year-round services, while the second testified that failure to provide ESY denied C.B. a FAPE. However, the second had never met nor observed C.B. The parents’ goal was to prove that the school district was being negligent by primarily relying on an independent evaluator, the CDC, to analyze C.B.’s autistic behavior. The school’s IEP team testified that C.B was making steady progress that did not deteriorate. The hearing officer concluded the school’s testimony was more persuasive. This was a result of the appellants’ witnesses having opinions based on impersonal files, while the school at least observed C.B, even if it was before the full scope of the diagnosis was known. Thus, the hearing officer deemed the denial of ESY by the school district appropriate. Following that, C.B.’s parents filed a complaint in May of 2005 with the United States District Court, in which the court reinforced the due process hearing officer’s decision that C.B was provided with a FAPE. 


Two years later, the parents filed an appeal to this final judgment, stating that the district court utilized an incorrect standard in providing a FAPE. As such, the court of appeals referred to the 1997 amendments to the IDEA, which stated that the school must provide a “meaningful benefit” to the student. With that in consideration, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined neither the district court nor the hearing officer had ruled inadequately in favor of the school district. While the court did affirm the school district’s decision to withhold ESY services, it concluded by vacating and remanding the portion of the district court’s order that states Hellgate fulfilled procedural requirements under IDEA. This is due to the school district’s lack of evaluation after the diagnosis was given by the CDC. In addition, there was no consideration for the costs and legal fees incurred by the parents for additional educational services in the 2003-04 school year. 


Impact 


N.B. v Hellgate Elementary School District is a case that set a precedent for institutional accountability when it comes to children with disability. While outsourcing and referring to facilities separate from school districts is common practice, especially when it comes to the disabled, this case establishes that institutions must still do their evaluations. This not only reinforces FAPE and the definition of meaningful benefit to the student, but also establishes due process centered around the student’s well-being. The use of independent contractors or partners to better a student’s education does not excuse institutions like Hellgate Elementary School District from fulfilling their procedural obligations. As such, this adds more responsibility on general education to protect the rights of students.



Court Documents 

N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary School District (2008) Ruling from UNITED STATES COURT  OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 


Citations 

Studicata N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary 541 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Justia Law. (2008, September 4) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/ 

appellate-courts/ca9/07-35018/0735018-2011-02-25.html



 
 
Donate
bottom of page