E. Supp. 11
On July 14, 2011, in E.M. ex rel. E.M. v. Pajaro Valley School District, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded a case because the district court applied an improper standard in determining whether a clinical psychologist’s report constituted “additional evidence” under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In so doing, the Ninth Circuit broadly defined the “additional evidence” courts must consider in hearing IDEA claims.