Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Administrative Law Blogs -> Within the Scope

Administrative Law

: Within the Scope

D. Haw: 45-Day Time Limit Under IDEA is Not Jurisdictional; Just Motivational

By Eric L. Lipman

In an interesting opinion from the Aloha State, the U.S. District Court for District Court of Hawaii vacated the dismissal of a disabled child?s petition in a special education case ? instructing that the hearing officer still had jurisdiction to resolve the child?s claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

After settlement talks between the litigants had languished for weeks, the hearing officer concluded that the forty-five day time limit for issuance of a decision in 34 C.F.R § 300.515 divested him of jurisdiction to issue a ruling after that deadline had lapsed. Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.515 (a), ?[t]he public agency must ensure that not later than 45 days after the expiration of the 30 day period . . . [a] final decision is reached in the hearing.?

Far from imposing a jurisdictional limitation on the powers of the Hawaii Department of Education and its hearing officers, however, the District Court concluded that the federal regulation merley directed state education agencies to work harder to resolve these cases. Reasoned United States District Judge Susan Oki Mollway:

The hearing officer?s interpretation conflicts not only with the spirit of the IDEA, but also with the letter of the law. The applicable rules and regulations clearly place the burden on the [Department of Education] to ensure that a decision is timely made. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) (requiring ?[t]he public agency? to ensure that a decision is reached within the stated period (emphasis added)); Haw. Admin. R. § 8-56-77 (requiring ?[t]he department? to ensure a timely decision (emphasis added)). When the hearing officer invited the DOE to move to dismiss and the DOE then successfully did move to dismiss Plaintiffs? petition, the DOE was not ?ensuring? that the hearing officer made an expeditious decision. Instead, the DOE was taking advantage of its own failure to ensure a timely decision.

The Court's complete analysis is accessible here.

Full post as published by Within the Scope on July 10, 2008 (boomark / email).