R.C. v. Garden City Union Free School District, No. 2:24-CV-8328 (LGD), 2026 WL 1674597, — F.Supp.3d — (E.D.N.Y. April 14, 2026), involved significant disagreements between an impartial hearing officer (IHO) and a state review officer (SRO). The district court found strong reasons to defer to the IHO rather than the SRO on the most significant issues, with the result that the IHO’s, and the parents’, view of the case prevailed.
The student attended kindergarten in the district during the 2019-20 school year. During that year, the parents raised concerns about his progress in reading, writing, and math, along with organization and fine motor skills. When the student was in second grade, the individualized education program (IEP) team met on May 19, 2022, for an initial eligibility determination. An IEP for the remainder of the school year followed, with an implementation date of June 6, 2022. The team also developed an IEP for third grade to begin on September 1, 2022. According to the parent, the district refused to discuss compensatory services at the meeting.
In February 2023, the parents requested reimbursement for an independent educational evaluation (IEE) consisting of an independent psychological report, a vision assessment, and a reading assessment. The district agreed to fund only the vision assessment. The parents filed for due process on June 20, 2023. They alleged a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) based on violations of child-find obligations, failure to evaluate in all areas of suspected disability using appropriate evaluative tools, improper classification, interference with parental participation in decision making, partial denial of the IEE reimbursement request, and failure to develop an adequate IEP.
The IHO ruled for the parents. The IHO found a denial of FAPE for the 2021-22 and 2022-23 school years, a failure to evaluate appropriately that resulted in an improper disability classification and inadequate IEP goals and programming, and a denial of parental participation rights based on the failure to discuss compensatory services. The FAPE denial extended from January 2022 through June 2023. The IHO ordered reimbursement for all of the independent evaluations, reimbursement and ongoing payment for vision therapy, and 240 hours of compensatory education consisting of 120 hours of occupational therapy (OT) and 120 hours of reading tutoring.
The SRO reversed much of that decision. The SRO reversed the FAPE finding and compensatory education award, along with the findings concerning improper evaluation, disability classification, goals and programming, and parental participation. The SRO affirmed the IHO’s decision concerning the IEE.
The district court, however, found problems with the SRO’s analysis. It concluded that the SRO’s reversal of the IHO’s child-find finding was not thorough and therefore was not entitled to deference. The court reinstated the IHO’s finding. It likewise found that the SRO’s reversal of the parental participation finding was not well reasoned and was not entitled to deference, and it reinstated that finding as well. Because the court found a procedural child-find violation, it reinstated the IHO’s compensatory relief. The court did not reach the substantive adequacy of the IEP after finding a procedural violation. It also concluded that neither the SRO nor the IHO erred in finding that the district should have funded the two additional independent assessments requested by the parents. 2026 WL 1674597, at *1.
The parties agreed that claims arising before June 20, 2021, were barred by the limitations period. The court concluded, however, that the SRO improperly excluded all evidence predating June 20, 2021, when deciding the child-find claim. The limitations period did not prevent consideration of earlier evidence when that evidence was relevant to events occurring within the limitations period. The court therefore found the SRO’s decision insufficiently thorough to warrant deference.
The IHO, by contrast, had considered evidence from kindergarten and first grade concerning the school’s awareness of the student’s writing difficulties, as well as second-grade evidence showing awareness of his academic struggles and the initiation of multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) services. The court reinstated the IHO’s child-find finding. The court found a similar problem with the SRO’s treatment of parental participation. The SRO gave little explanation for reversing the IHO’s finding that the parents had not been afforded a fair opportunity to participate in the discussion of compensatory services. The evidence showed that the district had refused to discuss the issue, so the court again rejected the SRO’s conclusion.
The court also agreed with the IHO that the child-find violation, although procedural, caused harm and warranted compensatory relief. Because the court found the IEP procedurally inadequate, it did not address its substantive sufficiency.
On the IEE issue, the court concluded that the district should have invoked due process to challenge the portions of the IEE request it rejected. The court distinguished D.S. v. Trumbull Board of Education, 975 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2020), and Alex W. v. Poudre School District R-1, 94 F.4th 1176 (10th Cir. 2024). Those decisions restricting the number of independent evaluations that must be funded did not limit the number of individual assessments that could be included within a properly requested IEE. Here, “the IEE requested was a reevaluation of the May 2022 evaluation with different components, not multiple, separate evaluations.” 2026 WL 1674597, at *13.
The decision is significant for the district court’s treatment of the competing IHO and SRO decisions. The court declined to defer to the SRO where it found the SRO’s analysis of child-find insufficiently thorough and its analysis of parental participation inadequately reasoned. It also distinguished between claims barred by the limitations period and earlier evidence relevant to timely claims, and treated the requested IEE as one reevaluation with multiple components rather than multiple separate evaluations.