ALEX W., by and through his parents and next friends, MARLENE W. and WILLIAM W.,

Plaintiffs - Appellants/Cross- Appellees,

v. Nos. 22-1236 & 22-1250

POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT R-1,

Defendants - Appellees/Cross- Appellants. _________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (D.C. No. 19-CV-01270-CMA-SKC) _________________________________

Jack D. Robinson of Spies Powers & Robinson, P.C., Denver, Colorado for Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Robert P. Montgomery of Semple, Farrington, Everall & Case, P.C., Denver, Colorado (Mary B. Gray and M. Brent Case, Semple, Farrington, Everall & Case, P.C., with him on the briefs), for Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellants. _________________________________

Before ROSSMAN, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

ROSSMAN, Circuit Judge. Appellate Case: 22-1250 Document: 010111011592 Date Filed: 03/07/2024 Page: 2

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et

seq., guarantees disabled students “a free appropriate public education,” or a

FAPE. 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). Appellant Alex W. is a student with

disabilities who attended elementary school from 2014 to 2018 in the Appellee

Poudre School District R-1 (School District). In 2018, his parents filed a

complaint with the Colorado Department of Education alleging the School

District denied Alex a FAPE. The Parents also sought reimbursement from the

School District for an independent neuropsychological evaluation conducted in

the summer of 2018. An administrative law judge denied relief but ordered the

School District to reimburse the Parents for the cost of the independent

evaluation under 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2). The Parents challenged the ALJ’s

decision on the FAPE claims in federal district court. The School District

brought a counterclaim, seeking reversal of the reimbursement order. The

district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision in full.

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we conclude the School

District fulfilled its obligations under the IDEA, so we affirm in Appeal No.

22-1236. But reimbursement was ordered in error, so we reverse in Cross-

Appeal No. 22-1250.

2 Appellate Case: 22-1250 Document: 010111011592 Date Filed: 03/07/2024 Page: 3

I

We begin by describing the legal, factual, and procedural background

common to both appeals. We then consider each appeal in turn, analyzing the

issues raised by the parties and adding context as needed.

A

Congress passed the IDEA to ensure “children with disabilities receive

needed special education services.” Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 580 U.S. 154,

157 (2017). The IDEA “requires States receiving federal funding to make a ‘free

appropriate public education’ available to all children with disabilities residing

in the State.” Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 232

(2009) (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A)). A FAPE is considered a “basic floor

of opportunity” to allow a child with disabilities access to an individually

designed education. Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist.,

Westchester Cnty v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 201 (1982). At the “core” of the FAPE

requirement is the “cooperative process . . . between parents and

schools,” Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 53 (2005), to jointly

craft an “‘individualized education program,’ or IEP” for each disabled student,

Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 391

(2017) (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9)(D)).

An IEP is the “comprehensive plan” by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document