Nicola Ruhl v. State of Ohio Health Dep't ( 2018 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 18a0071n.06
Nos. 17-3420/3422
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
)
NICOLA RUHL and GARY RUHL, on their own FILED
)
behalf and on behalf of a minor; W.R., Feb 12, 2018
) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
Plaintiffs-Appellants, )
)
v. )
ON APPEAL FROM THE
)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO HEALTH DEPARTMENT )
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
and RICHLAND COUNTY BOARD OF )
DISTRICT OF OHIO
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (17-3420 )
& 17-3422); WENDY GROVE (17-3422), )
Defendants-Appellees.
BEFORE: GUY, MOORE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
ROGERS, Circuit Judge. From May through December of 2013, the State of Ohio and
local agencies refused to fund a behavioral therapy service for W.R., a minor child with autism
subject to the protections of Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. After
finally approving W.R. for funding in December 2013, the defendants subsequently paid for
fewer hours of this therapy than the maximum to which W.R. was entitled. In the first of these
consolidated cases, 17-3422, W.R. through his parents Nicole and Gary Ruhl challenged Ohio’s
refusal to fund that therapy service before December 2013, but an administrative hearing officer
denied their claims and the district court affirmed that denial. In the second case, 17-3420, the
Ruhls sued over an alleged deficiency of services funded from December 2013 through April
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
2014, but that claim was dismissed as duplicative by the hearing officer and affirmed on those
grounds by a different district judge. The first district court did not err in affirming the denial of
the Ruhls’ complaint regarding W.R.’s lack of funding from May through December 2013,
because the Ruhls did not show that they were financially qualified for such payment before
December, and their claims regarding Ohio’s previous failure to fund such services were barred
by the statute of limitations. However, W.R.’s second complaint, about insufficient delivery of
services from December 2013 on, was not duplicative of the first complaint, because its claim of
failure to deliver sufficient services presented a different issue from the previous denial of
funding, and the complaint otherwise met IDEA Part C’s pleading requirements. W.R. is thus
entitled to continue to seek relief on the claims presented in his second complaint.
I.
This case deals with the unfortunate history of W.R., son of Gary and Nicola Ruhl born
on June 13, 2011. W.R. has long been subject to various cognitive developmental disorders. In
October, 2011, four months after birth, W.R.’s physician noted that W.R. exhibited torticollis, a
condition where a child’s head is inclined to one side. His physician therefore referred W.R. to
the Ohio Help Me Grow (“HMG”) program.
HMG is Ohio’s vehicle for implementing the state’s obligations under Part C of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. See 20 U.S.C. § 1435(a)(10); Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
§ 3701.61(A). Although the Ohio Department of Health (“ODH”) is the lead agency responsible
for administration of HMG, day-to-day implementation and management occurs at the county
level. Because the Ruhls reside in Richland County, the Richland County Family and Children
First Council was the administrator of HMG for W.R., and a county health services body,
Richland Newhope (officially known as the Richland County Board of Developmental
-2-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
Disabilities), coordinated and delivered agreed-to services to eligible participants. Thus, when
W.R.’s physician first referred W.R. to HMG, Richland Newhope conducted an eligibility
assessment, determined that W.R. was eligible for limited HMG services, and provided
occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech therapy to W.R. to treat his torticollis.
Richland Newhope also tracked W.R.’s treatment on an Individualized Family Service Plan
(IFSP). An IFSP is a written treatment plan for a child with disabilities, required by IDEA,
stating the child’s condition and listing the services for which a child is authorized. See
20 U.S.C. § 1436.
Starting in the summer of 2012 and into early 2013, W.R.’s developmental skills
regressed. His physician referred W.R. to a local hospital, and on April 12, 2013, that hospital
diagnosed W.R. with autism, as well as a mixed receptive-expressive language disorder. The
hospital’s diagnosis included recommendations that W.R. receive various intervention services,
programs designed to teach an at-risk child various cognitive, social, and language skills. In
particular, the hospital recommended that W.R. receive 25 to 40 hours per week of applied
behavior analysis (“ABA”), a one-on-one teaching service designed to mold a child’s behavior to
improve cognitive functioning. If delivered in a timely fashion, ABA services can allow a child
with a developmental disorder such as autism to overcome that disability and return to the path
of expected growth. On June 12th, Richland Newhope added ABA services as a “goal” on
W.R.’s IFSP.
After receiving W.R.’s diagnosis, Nicola Ruhl contacted both Richland Newhope and
Wendy Grove, the latter the IDEA Part C coordinator for the Ohio state government. On May 2,
2013, Grove informed Ruhl that HMG did not fund ABA services on a recurring basis and
notified her that there was an administrative complaint resolution procedure for IDEA Part C.
-3-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
On June 20, 2013, Richland Newhope informed Ruhl that it also did not provide ABA services.
The Ruhls instead began paying for ABA services from their own funds.
On September 5, 2013, following prompting from the federal Department of Education,
HMG changed its policy of refusing to fund ABA services, and began offering payments for
families meeting financial eligibility criteria. To qualify for public funding of ABA services, a
family had to enter Ohio’s Early Intervention System of Payments (EISOP) program, a scheme
for public payment of services for families with an income below a certain threshold or
expenditures above a defined level. A family qualifies for full payments of services under
EISOP by either showing that the family’s income is below a certain level—currently 185% of
the federal poverty level—or that their expenditure on healthcare services exceeds the requisite
levels for that family’s income. See Ohio Admin. Code 3701-8-08.1(A).
On November 18th, the Ruhls applied to the Ohio Department of Health for EISOP
funding for W.R.’s ABA services, but the department denied that application on November 26th,
because the Ruhls were over the maximum income threshold to qualify for state funding. On
December 3rd, the Ruhls again applied for EISOP funding, showing sufficient expenditures to
qualify under the program’s cost-share provision, and the department approved that application.
HMG funded ABA treatments for W.R. from mid-December 2013 through April, 2014, when
W.R. aged out of the program.
On September 18, 2014, the Ruhls filed a suit in the Northern District of Ohio, claiming
violation of IDEA Part C by the Ohio Department of Health, the Richland County Board of
Developmental Disabilities, and Wendy Gove, through their failure to provide W.R. with ABA
services. The Ruhls’ complaint presented claims under IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and sought relief for both W.R. and the
-4-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
class of children with his disabilities. The district court dismissed this complaint, on the grounds
that IDEA required the Ruhls first to exhaust their administrative remedies. W.R. v. Ohio Dep’t
of Health, No. 1:14 CV 02075, 2015 WL 5092522, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 27, 2015) (citing 34
C.F.R. 303.448(e)). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal on those same
grounds. W.R. v. Ohio Health Dep’t, 651 F. App’x 514, 515, 520 (6th Cir. 2016), cert. denied
sub nom. W.R. v. Ohio Dep’t of Health, 137 S. Ct. 377 (2016).
On September 2, 2015, the Ruhls filed an IDEA Part C administrative due process
complaint with ODH, alleging that W.R., along with all other children with autism in the State of
Ohio, had systematically been denied ABA services, and thus were entitled to compensatory
services to remedy the lack of ABA therapy at the appropriate time. The Ruhls specifically
alleged that ODH had violated IDEA Part C through Ohio’s previous policy of not paying for
ABA therapy for children with autism. They sought “funding to the Ruhls for three years of
compensatory services for [W.R.], reimbursement, and money damages.” The hearing officer
scheduled a hearing on these claims for December 7, 2015.
On December 3, four calendar days and two business days before the December 7
hearing, the Ruhls filed an additional due process complaint (“second complaint”) against the
Ohio Department of Health and Richland Newhope. This second complaint alleged that the
defendants had violated W.R.’s IFSP in that they had “left the task of securing [ABA] services to
[W.R]’s mother,” and that there was a lack of ABA providers in the HMG system. The second
complaint offered to combine itself with the original complaint filed on September 2, but the
defendants opposed this combination, and the Ruhls did not request permission from the hearing
officer to amend the original due process complaint to include this second complaint. Richland
Newhope subsequently moved to dismiss the second complaint on the grounds that it was an
-5-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
improper amendment of the Ruhls’ first complaint. ODH also moved to dismiss on the grounds
that the complaint did not state a cognizable claim under IDEA Part C, and failed to comply with
regulatory requirements for a due process complaint to identify providers serving the child.
On December 22, the hearing officer dismissed the second complaint. The hearing
officer first found that this complaint was duplicative of the first complaint, in that it “again
addresses the appropriate provision of early intervention services to [W.R.] under IDEA Part C,”
and “contains the same issues of fact and the same parties as the original Due Process
Complaint.” The hearing officer also determined that the second complaint was not a proper
amendment of the first complaint, because an amendment of a due process complaint under
IDEA required either consent from the opposing party or filing five days before a hearing, and
this second complaint qualified for neither category. The hearing officer thus concluded that a
hearing on the complaint was not required, and granted Richland Newhope’s motion to dismiss
the complaint, because “it did not address an issue separate from a due process complaint already
filed.” The hearing officer did not reach ODH’s argument about the insufficiency of the
complaint or whether the claim was cognizable under IDEA Part C. The Ruhls appealed that
dismissal to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
On March 22, 2016, the same hearing officer also denied the Ruhls’ initial complaint.
The hearing officer first held that the Ruhls were time-barred from seeking relief for violations
occurring before September 2nd, 2013, because IDEA Part C regulations include a two-year
statute of limitations, see 34 C.F.R. § 303.443(e), and the hearing officer determined that the
Ruhls had not pleaded evidence to support tolling that deadline. The hearing officer additionally
dismissed Richland Newhope as a party, because the hearing officer decided that the Ruhls had
not raised claims against Richland Newhope. Turning to the substance of the Ruhls’ claims, the
-6-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
hearing officer determined that ODH had not violated IDEA Part C, because the Ruhls had not
introduced evidence that they had paid sufficient medical expenditures to make them financially
qualified for EISOP payments prior to November, 2013, and the defendants were not required to
provide payments for ABA services to financially ineligible families. Because the hearing
officer held that the Ruhls bore the burden of proving that they were not provided appropriate
services, the officer ruled that the Ruhls’ failure to show eligibility for those services meant that
they were not entitled to compensation for any lack of services. The Ruhls also appealed this
dismissal to the Northern District of Ohio.
The district court hearing the Ruhls’ first appeal, on the dismissal of their second
administrative complaint, affirmed the dismissal of that complaint. The district judge, Judge
Boyko, held that this second complaint covered the same ground as that of the first, in that the
claims, parties, and remedies sought were the same, and “[t]he First Complaint broadly
encompassed the denial of early intervention services for this two year period.” Although
recognizing that the second complaint nominally dealt with actions after ABA therapy was added
to W.R.’s IFSP, Judge Boyko ruled that the first complaint encompassed this claim also, based
on a statement in that first complaint, that the defendants “systemically continu[e] to deprive
[W.R.] of compensatory services.” Judge Boyko further held that there were sufficient
alternative grounds to dismiss the Ruhls’ complaint on the issue ODH had identified, the
complaints’ alleged failures to meet requirements under IDEA Part C, see 34 C.F.R. § 303.441,
in that the complaint did not identify W.R.’s therapy providers, “failed to include a description of
the problem of W.R. relating to the proposed or refused initiation or change,” and sought an
improper remedy of damages.
-7-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
Before the second district court decided the appeal of the first administrative complaint,
ODH moved to dismiss the Ruhls’ ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and § 1983 claims. The district
court, Judge Gwin, granted those motions, on the grounds that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act
claims lacked the necessary element of causation because “W.R. was not treated differently than
any other child entitled to services under IDEA Part C,” and “Section 1983 is not available to
remedy violations of IDEA because IDEA creates a comprehensive compensation scheme.”
Also before that second district court, the Ruhls filed a motion to submit additional
evidence, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1439(a)(1). In particular, they proposed to submit a financial
worksheet, showing the Ruhls’ gross income, and the amount of the cost-sharing deductible
necessary for a family at that income level to pay to qualify for EISOP. That motion did not,
however, state that the worksheet would show when or if the Ruhls had met that deductible
amount. The Ruhls also proposed to add testimony from various state officials and parents of
children with autism, as well as testimony from two behavioral experts on ABA therapy and
autism. The district court denied this motion to supplement the record on the grounds that the
testimony was irrelevant, because it sought to litigate a claim of “‘systemic deprivation on behalf
of all children with autism,” and “Plaintiffs’ suit only concerns the wrongful deprivation of
IDEA services to Plaintiff W.R.” The court also rejected the proposal to submit the financial
worksheet, because “there is already testimony and evidence regarding the family’s financial
eligibility.”
After motions from the parties, Judge Gwin affirmed the hearing officer’s denial of the
Ruhls’ original administrative complaint. Judge Gwin first held that the two-year statute of
limitations under IDEA regulations applied to the Ruhls’ claims, and so their filing of the
administrative complaint on September 2, 2015 meant that they were not entitled to remedies for
-8-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
violations before September 2, 2013. On the Ruhls’ claims following September 2, Judge Gwin
additionally found that the Ruhls had “failed to present evidence that they were financially
eligible for publicly funded ABA therapy before November 2013,” and so they had not shown
any violations occurring before ODH began funding ABA services. Judge Gwin also determined
that the Ruhls’ claims for reimbursement were impermissible claims for money damages, and
were thus improper.
The Ruhls appeal both decisions, and we consider the two cases together.
II.
Judge Gwin did not err in finding that Ruhls’ first complaint, regarding their lack of
payments under EISOP before December 2013, was subject to dismissal, because Ohio could
condition these payments on a family’s financial qualification for them, and the Ruhls did not
show that they were eligible for these payments before December 2013. In particular, the Ruhls
were eligible for EISOP funding to begin only after they had first spent a certain amount on
medical services. The Ruhls first stated that they had reached this spending level in their
December application, however, and there is no evidence in the record showing that they had
achieved this level before that time. The defendants did not commit an IDEA Part C violation in
not offering EISOP payments to a family who were not yet entitled to such payments. The Ruhls
assert additional claims in their first complaint, but these also fail.
A.
Judge Gwin did not err in affirming the dismissal of the Ruhls’ first complaint, because
the Ruhls did not show that they were qualified for EISOP payments in the period before their
December application. Ohio offered two pathways for a family to qualify for early-intervention
services funding under EISOP: if a family’s income was below a certain threshold, or if that
-9-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
family showed they had expended a sufficient amount on healthcare services. Ohio Admin.
Code 3701-8-08.1. IDEA Part C allows a state to “provid[e] for a system of payments by
families, including a schedule of sliding fees.” 20 U.S.C. § 1432(4)(B), see also 34 C.F.R. §
303.521. In this case, the Ruhls’ income was above the threshold to qualify for payment under
EISOP, and it was not until they submitted their application of December 3, 2013 that they
showed their expenditures had reached the required levels. Because a family is not eligible for
EISOP payments for early-intervention services unless financially eligible, see Ohio Admin.
Code 3701-8-08.1, the defendants did not commit an IDEA Part C violation in not providing
EISOP funding before the Ruhls showed their rights to such payments.
The Ruhls appear to contend most broadly that HMG had an obligation to make
payments under EISOP even before the Ruhls had submitted their application showing their
eligibility, but this is clearly not the case. A government can require a claimant to apply for
benefits, such that no violation of an entitlement occurs if a person eligible for benefits does not
apply and demonstrate his eligibility for them. See Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785, 790
(1981); Hepke v. Harris, 657 F.2d 100, 101 (6th Cir. 1981). Indeed, the Supreme Court has
stated that “the normal assumption” is “that an applicant is not entitled to benefits unless and
until he proves his eligibility.” Lavine v. Milne, 424 U.S. 577, 584 (1976). Here, the Ruhls did
not so prove their eligibility for payments under EISOP until they applied showing that they had
met the cost-sharing levels required to qualify for payment by the state, and IDEA Part C
allowed HMG to impose this eligibility requirement as a precondition to payment.
Although it is true that IDEA Part C generally favors ensuring payment for early
intervention services, see 20 U.S.C. § 1431(b)(2), the statute also allows a state to “provid[e] for
a system of payments by families, including a schedule of sliding fees.” 20 U.S.C. § 1432(4)(B),
-10-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
see also 34 C.F.R. § 303.521. It was therefore permissible for HMG to have asked the Ruhls to
pay a share of medical expenses before HMG began payments for ABA therapy under EISOP,
and for HMG to have required some proof of those expenditures before payment began.
It is also true that the Ruhls were asking for purely financial reimbursements for ABA
services, rather than a right of access to those services themselves. Even before EISOP began its
payments, the Ruhls were able to schedule ABA therapy from private providers and pay for it
out of their own funds. This is therefore not a case where a state withheld a family’s access to
services until a family proved its inability to pay for them. Cf. Ohio Admin. Code 3701-8-
08.1(B) (forbidding conditioning services on a parent’s financial status). Nor do the Ruhls allege
that lack of EISOP payments kept them from scheduling any time with ABA providers. Rather,
the Ruhls sought reimbursements for the therapy they had paid for, and believed that additional
payments would allow W.R. to receive additional hours of therapy. This request was a
reasonable one, and such payments might well have benefitted W.R. At the same time, Ohio
also had an interest in ensuring that its payments under EISOP went to families with the greatest
financial needs. Because Ohio’s EISOP eligibility guidelines are the means of effectuating that
interest, see Ohio Admin. Code 3701-8-08.1, requiring the Ruhls to show their eligibility
pursuant to these guidelines was a permissible prerequisite before state funding kicked in.
Where as here, an applicant seeks a purely financial benefit, it is well-established that a
government can impose some minimum safeguards before paying out those benefits. Mathews v.
Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 348 (1976). It is for this reason that, in a case involving substantially
similar facts, a district court considering whether IDEA Part C allowed the District of Columbia
to require proof of a family’s financial status held that: “[f]amilies in the District that receive
services covered by Part C of the IDEA therefore are not automatically entitled to full
-11-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
reimbursement of any associated costs, but must instead qualify as eligible for reimbursement
under the District's schedule of fees.” Quinn v. District of Columbia, 740 F. Supp. 2d 112, 126
(D. D.C. 2010). Simply put, the Ruhls’ position that Ohio was obliged to make EISOP payments
to them first and assess their qualifications later flies in the face of the usual assumptions about
how a payment program like EISOP runs. It therefore did not violate W.R.’s rights under IDEA
Part C for HMG to have required the Ruhls to apply for EISOP payments before beginning to
make those payments, or for HMG not to have begun those payments until the Ruhls applied and
demonstrated that they were eligible under Ohio’s standards.
The Ruhls argue that their approval for EISOP payment in December proves that they
were eligible for the program at points earlier in the year, given that their income was constant.
But the record does not support the Ruhls’ contention that they were eligible prior to December.
Because the Ruhls’ income was above the minimum level to qualify for payments based on
income alone, their eligibility accrued only when they had spent the amounts of medical co-
payments that their income level required of them. See Ohio Admin. Code 3701-8-08.1(A). The
first evidence that the Ruhls reached that level of spending came when they submitted their
December application, and the record does not contain any information about the Ruhls’ medical
spending before that date. The Ruhls appear to argue that, if they had spent the same amount on
medical expenses and applied on the basis of those expenses earlier in the year, then they would
have been qualified for EISOP payments at some point before December. While logically
coherent, this argument is also irrelevant to the conclusion that the Ruhls were not eligible for
-12-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
payments prior to December because they neither applied on the basis of such expenses nor have
subsequently offered evidence to show such expenses existed prior to December.1
We acknowledge that a more diligent investigation by the defendants prior to December
might have allowed them to identify expenditures qualifying the Ruhls for EISOP payments.
Certainly, as the Ruhls point out, EISOP applications are “complicated,” and frequently require
assistance to complete. Indeed, the fact that the amount of the Ruhls’ cost share was $2,625
suggests that a more diligent effort by defendants might have allowed them to help the Ruhls
identify qualifying medical expenditures amounting to that level. Although the defendants’
failure to assist the Ruhls in navigating the pathways under which they might have been eligible
for EISOP payments thus hardly stands as a model of commendable public service, our task here
involves only deciding whether the defendants committed a violation of IDEA Part C. Because
the Ruhls do not show that the responsibility of applying for EISOP payments was anyone’s
responsibility other than theirs, their delay in submitting an application with the information
necessary to show their eligibility for EISOP payments means that the defendants did not commit
an IDEA Part C violation in not offering EISOP payments until that application arrived.
B.
Because the Ruhls were not entitled to payments for ABA therapy under EISOP until
they had submitted an application showing their eligibility for those benefits to pay out, based on
their medical expenditures actually incurred, they do not show any violation of IDEA Part C in
defendants’ non-payment before December. The Ruhls nonetheless claim that they should be
allowed to sue for the period in which EISOP categorically did not pay for ABA therapy,
1
Because the Ruhls did not demonstrate that they had reached the necessary level of spending to qualify for EISOP
payments before their December application, we do not reach the issue of whether a family may claim
reimbursements from a program like EISOP if they are qualified before the date of their application, but do not
apply until well after their qualification has accrued.
-13-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
although their counsel conceded at oral argument that a decision that the Ruhls were not eligible
for EISOP payments until December would likely preclude this claim. While it may seem
problematic to conclude that the Ruhls are barred from contesting a denial in May based on a
funding standard not promulgated until September, we need not reach that conclusion here
because the Ruhls’ claims about the period in question are barred by the relevant statute of
limitations.
Under the implementing regulations for IDEA Part C, a “due process complaint must
allege a violation that occurred not more than two years before the date the parent or EIS
provider knew, or should have known, about the alleged action that forms the basis of the due
process complaint.” 34 C.F.R. § 303.440. Ohio regulations likewise provide a two-year statute
of limitations for administrative complaints under IDEA Part C. Ohio Admin. Code 3701-8-
10(D)(6). Here, the Ruhls filed their first administrative due process complaint on September 2,
2015, and so the two-year statute of limitations meant that they could not claim for alleged
violations occurring before September 2, 2013, the period including the time in which HMG
categorically refused to fund ABA therapy through EISOP. The hearing officer and district court
thus correctly held that the Ruhls could not maintain a claim based on ODH’s denial of their
initial request for funding for ABA therapy, because that denial occurred in May of 2013, a
period outside of the statute of limitations.
The Ruhls propose a number of reasons why the statute of limitations should not apply to
them, but none of their theories is correct. The Ruhls first argue that they are entitled to the
benefit of an Ohio savings statute allowing a plaintiff to refile claims failing otherwise than on
the merits, see Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.19(A), which they contend means the dismissal of their
2014 suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies resets the limitation clock from the date
-14-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
of that dismissal. This savings statute is, however, not applicable to a claim under IDEA Part
C’s statute of limitations. Where a claim based on is based on federal law, and that federal law
has its own statute of limitations, it is straightforward that those limitations control. See Burnett
v. New York Central Railroad, 380 U.S. 424, 432–33 (1965); Johnson v. Railway Exp. Agency,
Inc., 489 F.2d 525, 529–30 (6th Cir. 1973), judgment aff'd, 421 U.S. 454 (1975). Here, the
Ruhls’ claims are based on IDEA Part C, which has a two-year statute of limitations and no
savings provision. See 34 C.F.R. § 303.440. The Ruhls’ claims were thus subject to these
limitations.
The Ruhls are also incorrect in arguing that a state limitation provision like a saving
statute, governing claims under state law, equally applies to claims under federal law where a
contrary statute of limitation already exists. See Burnett, 380 U.S. 432–33. As the Seventh
Circuit has stated, where a plaintiff “asserts a purely federal claim, and is subject to a federal
statute of limitations, state savings statutes do not apply.” Beck v. Caterpillar Inc., 50 F.3d 405,
407 (7th Cir. 1995) (collecting cases). It is true that a state savings statute can apply to a federal
cause of action governed by a state statute of limitations. See, e.g., Coleman v. Dep’t of Rehab.
& Corr., 46 F. App’x 765, 769 (6th Cir. 2002) (applying a state savings statute to a claim under
42 U.S.C. § 1983). Where, as here, the applicable limitation is a federal one, a state savings
statute like the Ohio one identified by the Ruhls cannot preempt that limit.
The Ruhls argue that IDEA Part C’s statute of limitations do not preclude application of
the Ohio savings statute because Part C’s limitations were promulgated by regulation rather than
established in IDEA’s statutory text, but that is not a consequential difference. “[A] federal
agency acting within the scope of its congressionally delegated authority may pre-empt state
regulation.” Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. F.C.C., 476 U.S. 355, 369 (1986). Here, the
-15-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
Department of Education had the statutory authority to establish minimum procedures for
resolution of IDEA Part C claims, see 20 U.S.C. § 1439(a), and the establishment of time-limits
for challenges was a valid exercise of that authority. IDEA Part C’s time-limit is thus a federally
imposed limitation, which controls over a state exception.
The Ruhls also point out that IDEA Part B contains an explicit two-year statute of
limitations, while IDEA Part C does not, and so by implication, Congress must not have intended
for a statute of limitations to apply to IDEA Part C claims. This argument fails, however,
because it ignores Congress’s vesting of the Department of Education with the right to establish
procedures for IDEA Part C proceedings, see 20 U.S.C. § 1439(a), under which the Department
had the power to establish an operative statute of limitations.
The Ruhls identify express exceptions in the federal statute of limitations allowing
extension of time to file a claim beyond two years, but those exceptions are also not applicable to
their case. The regulations implementing the statute of limitation extend the period to file in two
circumstances: “[s]pecific misrepresentations by the lead agency or EIS provider that it had
resolved the problem forming the basis of the due process complaint” and “[t]he lead agency's or
EIS provider’s failure to provide the parent information that was required under this part to be
provided to the parent.” 34 C.F.R. § 303.443(f). The Ruhls argue for the presence of the first
exception here, on the grounds that HMG “had not disclosed to the family that HMG chose to
disregard federal law.” In fact, both HMG and Richland Newhope explicitly told the Ruhls that
Ohio did not fund ABA services in May and June 2013, and so no misrepresentation occurred.
The Ruhls also argue that they were not provided “information that was required under
this part,” 34 C.F.R. § 303.443(f)(2), because IDEA Part C regulations include a requirement for
adequate written notice of agency action, 34 C.F.R. § 303.421, and the Ruhls allege that this was
-16-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
not provided to them. What notice was provided to the Ruhls is irrelevant, however, because the
exception applies only if lack of such notice meant that the “parent was prevented from filing a
due process complaint” by virtue of that lack of notice. 34 C.F.R. § 303.443(f). Here, the Ruhls
possessed all the necessary information to assert their rights under IDEA Part C, as evidenced by
their ability to file a lawsuit in September 2014 on the same grounds and information as they
argue here. That their claim failed in that court because they asserted it in the improper venue
does not demonstrate that any lack of information provided by defendants precluded the Ruhls
from bringing a timely due process claim through the appropriate channels.
The Ruhls finally argue that equitable tolling should apply to their claim, but they do not
show that choosing to file a claim in an inappropriate venue is sufficient reason to apply such
tolling. This court has stated that equitable tolling is available only “when a litigant’s failure to
meet a legally-mandated deadline unavoidably arose from circumstances beyond that litigant’s
control.” Jackson v. United States, 751 F.3d 712, 718 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Robertson v.
Simpson, 624 F.3d 781, 783 (6th Cir. 2010)). Here, the Ruhls face the two-year statute of
limitations under IDEA Part C because they did not file their first administrative complaint until
September 2015. That they filed then, and not in time, owed to factors entirely within their
control, namely their decision to file first in federal district court.
Doubtless, the Ruhls might have cause to regret their first lawsuit, given its effect on their
claims. Certainly, given the clear requirement for IDEA Part C claims to be submitted first to an
administrative proceeding, W.R. v. Ohio Health Dep’t, 651 F. App’x at 518, it is difficult to
understand why they chose this particular tack. Whether W.R. was the victim of poor advice, an
incorrect assessment of IDEA Part C’s requirements, or simply a badly-calculated gamble on
what forum would be most amenable to their complaint, the Ruhls do not present sufficient cause
-17-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
for equitable tolling to apply to those claims. This is not to say that the behavior of the Ohio
Department of Health deserves great commendation: after all, the basis of the Ruhls’ complaint
was a policy of refusing to fund any ABA therapy, a policy that the U.S. Department of
Education subsequently deemed to be improper. Because that refusal took place outside the
period of the statute of limitations, however, we are barred from addressing this matter.
On appeal, the Ruhls argue that they did not know until October 2013 that the federal
Department of Education had recommended that Ohio fund ABA therapy, and thus they lacked
the knowledge necessary to support an IDEA Part C claim until that time. This argument fails,
however, because knowing the position of the U.S. Department of Education was not necessary
for the Ruhls to realize that they had a claim. In a regime like the one at issue here, the Supreme
Court has stated that it has “been at pains to explain that discovery of the injury, not discovery of
the other elements of a claim, is what starts the clock.” Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 555,
(2000). Wendy Grove provided the Ruhls on May 2, 2013 with the information that served as
the basis for their cause of action: that HMG did not fund ABA therapy and that an objection
could be made in through administrative process. That knowledge sufficed to make the Ruhls
aware they had suffered an injury, and that they had a claim. The clock on litigating HMG’s
initial denial of ABA therapy to W.R. therefore began on May 2, 2013, and terminated two years
later—before the Ruhls filed their first complaint.
C.
The Ruhls further argue that the district court erred in refusing to allow them to
supplement the record with various evidence that they allege would demonstrate an IDEA Part C
violation, but Judge Gwin did not err in refusing to hear this evidence, because it did not show
such a violation. The Ruhls appeal the exclusion of two pieces of evidence: a financial
-18-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
worksheet showing the level of payments necessary to qualify a family of the Ruhls’ income for
EISOP payment, and testimony of various witnesses on issues related to autism. That worksheet
apparently was, however, merely duplicative of evidence already in the record, and the testimony
of the other witnesses was irrelevant. With regard to all this evidence, although IDEA Part C
provides that, in an appeal of an administrative hearing, a district court “shall hear additional
evidence at the request of a party,” 20 U.S.C. § 1439(a)(1), this court has emphasized that “the
determination of which additional evidence to allow rests within the sound discretion of the
district court.” Deal v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840, 850 (6th Cir. 2004). The
district court did not abuse its discretion here when it excluded this evidence, because it did not
materially add to the Ruhls’ claims.
Declining to supplement the record with the financial worksheet was not error because
the facts it proved were already in the record, and the worksheet did not otherwise demonstrate
the Ruhls’ eligibility for EISOP services. In their motion to supplement the record, the Ruhl
stated that the worksheet showed what amount of the cost-sharing deductible qualified a family
at the Ruhls’ income level for public payment through the EISOP, but they did not state that the
worksheet provided information about the Ruhls’ spending levels, or any other information
specific to the Ruhls. The district court declined to supplement the record with the worksheet,
because information about Ruhls’ general financial situation was already in the record, and there
was no controversy over what deductible level applied to the Ruhls. The Ruhls contend that the
financial worksheet was relevant because it showed that a family with their income who had paid
a certain amount of medical expenses was entitled to EISOP payments for further medical
expenditures. But the Ruhls were not entitled to such payments here because there was no
evidence that they had actually met the requisite spending level before their application, and the
-19-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
worksheet, as described in their motion to introduce it, did not offer evidence on that point.2
Because the worksheet as described thus did not speak to the missing part of the Ruhls’ case—
that they had spent enough to be financially eligible before the time of their application—the
court did not abuse its discretion in declining to add it to the administrative record.
The district court also did not abuse its discretion in declining to add to the record the
testimony from the other parents and expert witnesses on autism. The district court determined
that both sets of testimony constituted improper attempts to litigate the purported systemic
culpability of ODH in its treatment of children with autism, as opposed to the specific
deprivation of IDEA services to W.R. A court need not supplement the record with irrelevant
material. See France v. Lucas, 836 F.3d 612, 632 (6th Cir. 2016). On appeal, the Ruhls contend
that this evidence was relevant because it purportedly showed how W.R. was injured by systemic
misconduct by ODH. Yet because the Ruhls’ claims about systemic culpability were limited by
the statute of limitations, this theory of misconduct under which the testimony could be
relevant—that ODH denied ABA therapy to W.R. because it had a systemic policy of denying
such therapy—is time-barred. Testimony of other parents and of autism experts was not relevant
to the Ruhls’ remaining claim, that they were improperly denied EISOP payments before
December 3rd, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding it.
2
The only evidence before Judge Gwin about what the worksheet contained was its brief description in the motion
to supplement the record, which did not include the worksheet itself. The district court was thus required to decide
the motion to supplement based on what facts were presented to it.
-20-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
III.
The Ruhls brought various other statutory and constitutional claims, but Judge Gwin did
not err by dismissing these claims, because the Ruhls did not plead facts sufficient to
demonstrate the violation of any of these rights.
The Ruhls first challenge the dismissal of their American with Disabilities Act and
Rehabilitation Act claims, but Judge Gwin correctly concluded that both claims failed for lack of
alleged facts supporting causation. The Ruhls argued that the defendants had committed ADA
and Rehabilitation Act violations when they did not fund ABA services for children with autism.
The Ruhls did not, however, allege facts indicating that W.R. was treated any differently because
of his specific disability: in other words, that but for W.R.’s autism, the defendants would have
funded ABA services—or other services necessary for treating the relevant disability—for W.R.
At most, the Ruhls argued that the defendants did not establish a system for funding ABA
therapy, which particularly impacted persons with autism, for whom ABA therapy is an
important treatment, but this is not a claim of discrimination because of a disability. As we have
held, “[b]oth the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act require the
challenged discrimination to occur because of disability, which is another way of saying that the
plaintiff must establish a but-for relationship between the protested act and the individual's
disability.” Gohl v. Livonia Pub. Sch. Sch. Dist., 836 F.3d 672, 682 (6th Cir. 2016). Where, as
here, a plaintiff alleges no facts indicating that a plaintiff’s disability caused acts to occur that
would not otherwise have occurred but for that disability, those claims are subject to dismissal.
The Ruhls argue that disability discrimination occurred here because defendants did not
allow W.R. to “achieve the life goals of IDEA Part C.” Although this argument potentially
pleads an IDEA Part C violation, it does not articulate a disability-discrimination claim unless,
-21-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
but for W.R.’s having autism as opposed to another disability, the defendants would have so
allowed him to achieve IDEA Part C’s life goals. The Ruhls offer no evidence supporting that
latter argument. The district court thus correctly dismissed the Ruhls’ ADA and Rehabilitation
Act claims.
The Ruhls finally challenge the dismissal of their § 1983 claims, but the claim is waived.
In proceedings below, the Ruhls had pleaded the violation of W.R.’s civil rights both
substantively, in the denial of funding for ABA therapy, and procedurally, in the lack of a pre-
deprivation hearing. Judge Gwin, however, rejected these claims on the basis that “Section 1983
is not available to remedy violations of IDEA because IDEA creates a comprehensive
compensation scheme.” In their appellate brief, the Ruhls again repeat the substance of their §
1983 claim, see Ruhl Brief at 62–64,3 but they do not address the dispositive point of the ruling
below: that § 1983 does not allow claims for violations of IDEA. As we have stated, a failure to
contest a basis for a lower court’s judgment means “that ruling stands for purposes of this
appeal.” White Oak Prop. Dev., LLC v. Washington Twp., Ohio, 606 F.3d 842, 854 (6th Cir.
2010). The Ruhls here fail to contest the reason why they lost in the court below, and so Judge
Gwin’s ruling stands in this case. We emphasize, however, that this ruling stands solely because
the Ruhls did not contest this issue on appeal, and we do not address the substance of Judge
Gwin’s reasoning in this respect.
3
In their reply brief, the Ruhls state, without any additional support or argumentation that “IDEA does not provide
exclusive rights and remedies.” Ruhl Reply Brief at 19–20. This fact does not save the issue, not only because the
statement is so perfunctory as to constitute waiver, Langley v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 502 F.3d 475, 483 (6th Cir.
2007), but also because appellants forfeit any issues not contained in the opening brief, Hills v. Kentucky, 457 F.3d
583, 588 (6th Cir. 2006).
-22-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
IV.
Turning to the Ruhls’ second appeal, the appeal of Judge Boyko’s denial of their second
administrative complaint, the Ruhls are entitled to reversal, because that complaint was neither
duplicative of the first complaint, nor failed to meet IDEA Part C’s pleading standards.
Although the first and second complaints cover apparently similar ground, there is
enough difference between the two that the district court erred in affirming the hearing officer’s
finding that the complaints were duplicative. In particular, the first hearing complaint raises the
defendants’ alleged general failure to permit ABA therapy under HMG, while the second
specifically raises an alleged inadequacy of that therapy’s provision to W.R. after his December
2013 authorization. To that point, in the first hearing complaint, the Ruhls’ principal IDEA Part
C cause of action stated that “Defendants Ohio and Grove unilaterally and categorically
predetermined to withhold the early intervention service of applied behavior analysis therapy
from W.R. (until December 2013).” By contrast, the second hearing complaint stated that it
sought payments “for the difference between the amount of IFSP authorized ABA therapy and
speech therapy for [W.R.] and the actual much lower amount Mrs. Ruhl was able to achieve for
her son.” On these facts, a categorical failure to offer ABA therapy is a different claim from not
providing authorized therapy, and the claims do not substitute for one another.
A closer look at the structures of the two complaints further confirms that they deal with
differing issues. The first hearing complaint contains extensive allegations about how ODH and
Richland Newhope “refused to allow the Help Me Grow system to provide applied behavior
analysis therapy until USDOE ultimately instructed Ohio,” in May 2013. The first complaint
thus repeatedly refers to defendants’ failures with W.R. as continuing “until he turned 2 ½ years
old”—that is, the time at which W.R. was approved for ABA therapy payments. By contrast, the
-23-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
second hearing complaint, although scant, focuses on purported failures following W.R.’s
approval for those payments. The second complaint states that defendants committed violations
because they “left the task of securing [ABA] services to [W.R.]’s mother at a time when the
HMG system first had no authorized service providers and then just one or two whose
availability was delayed and/or intermittent.” That second complaint takes as given the existence
of EISOP funding through HMG and does not raise any issues occurring before HMG included
ABA therapy, while the focus of the first complaint is the lack of such therapy before HMG so
authorized it. Because the lack of any funding for ABA therapy and inadequate provision of that
therapy are ultimately distinct issues, these issues are not duplicative.
The defendants offer several reasons why the second complaint is duplicative of that of
the first, but none of these has merit. The Ohio Department of Health does not explicitly defend
the decision on the basis that the complaints are duplicative, but it does state, in a one-sentence
and arguably waived argument, that the second complaint “dealt with an alleged ongoing issue
with the provision of ABA therapy.” Except at the highest level of generality, however, this
categorization is inaccurate. Lack of provision of authorized services is a different claim from a
prior total failure to authorize those services, and it cannot be the case that having sued over
some lack of provision of services in the past precludes a plaintiff from ever suing about a
different issue relating to the delivery of those services in the future.
Richland Newhope, by contrast, squarely defends the decision below, arguing that the
Ruhls’ assertion in their first complaint that defendants “now systemically continues [sic] to
deprive him of compensatory services” invoked violations occurring after W.R. received
authorization for ABA therapy payments. This ambiguous and otherwise undeveloped sentence
in the Ruhls’ first administrative complaint contrasts with the remainder of the first complaint,
-24-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
which focuses entirely on deprivation through total denial of ABA services, and does not
mention—much less develop—the theory of liability based on inadequate provision advanced in
the second due process complaint. The hearing officer thus erred in finding the second due
process complaint duplicative of the first, and the district court erred in affirming that
assessment.
A.
In addition to affirming the dismissal of the second administrative complaint on the
grounds that it was duplicative, the district court also affirmed on the alternative grounds that this
complaint failed to meet IDEA Part C’s pleading requirements. Although a closer issue, the
complaint, if somewhat opaque, did not violate the specific pleading requirements identified in
IDEA Part C, and so the complaint is not subject to dismissal on those grounds either.
Under IDEA Part C regulations, a sufficient due process complaint must include, among
other things, “[t]he name of the EIS provider serving the child,” 34 C.F.R. § 303.441(b)(3); a
“description of the nature of the problem of the child relating to the proposed or refused initiation
or change.” id. § 303.441(b)(5); and a “proposed resolution of the problem to the extent known
and available to the party at the time,” id. § 303.441(b)(6). Because all three elements were
present, albeit in brief fashion, the complaint was on balance not subject to dismissal on grounds
of insufficiency.
With respect to the first requirement to identify EIS providers, although the complaint did
not “allege the names of the therapy providers for speech and ABA,” the complaint did identify a
EIS provider serving a child: Richland Newhope. It is true that the Ruhls’ complaint did not
identify the private therapy providers from whom W.R. had been receiving therapy services, but
it is not clear why these providers would be necessary parties to this action, given that the
-25-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
government presumably could not compel private providers to offer more hours of therapy to
W.R. The more natural reading of § 303.441(b)(3) is that it requires a claimant to identify some
EIS provider serving the child if available,4 which the Ruhls did here in identifying Richland
Newhope. This identification was thus sufficient to satisfy § 303.441(b)(3).
The complaint was also not insufficient under § 303.441(b)(5)’s requirement for a
“description of the nature of the problem of the child relating to the proposed or refused initiation
or change.” The Third Circuit, in interpreting language in IDEA Part B identical to 34 C.F.R.
§ 303.441(b)(5), has held that this requirement means a complaint must do more than “merely
identif[y] the problem”; it must also “provide a description of the nature of the problem that
included facts.” M.S.-G. v. Lenape Reg’l High Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 306 F. App’x 772, 775
(3d Cir. 2009). The Ruhls did so here in identifying the nature of the problem facing W.R.—he
suffers from autism and would benefit from ABA therapy—and connecting it to some alleged
violation by the defendants—that the defendants had “left the task of securing [ABA] services to
[W.R.]’s mother at a time when the HMG system first had no authorized service providers and
then just one or two whose availability was delayed and/or intermittent.” By way of contrast, in
M.S.-G., the plaintiff had only identified a problem—that he had been suspended from school—
but not alleged that the defendants had taken any inappropriate action or more generally violated
his rights under IDEA. See M.S.-G, 306 F. App’x at 774–75. Although the Ruhls’ second
complaint was not extensive, it did identify the problem, the nature of the problem, and sufficient
facts to comply with § 303.441(b)(5)’s demands.
Finally, the fact that the Ruhls’ proposed resolution was payments for the additional
hours allowable under the IFSP does not mean that their claim was insufficient under
4
The defendants also do not explain how the requirement for a plaintiff to identify an EIS provider would operate in
a situation like the one in the Ruhls’ first claim, regarding a total lack of EIS services, where there would by
definition be no provider available to identify.
-26-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
§ 303.441(b)(6)’s requirement for a proposed resolution. While arguably inappropriate, as
money damages are not available under IDEA, see Hall v. Knott Cty. Bd. of Educ., 941 F.2d 402,
406 (6th Cir. 1991), IDEA does allow a plaintiff to request payments for expenses accrued
because of an IDEA violation, see Crocker v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 980 F.2d
382, 386 (6th Cir. 1992). It might be that the Ruhls’ claims are ultimately for damages rather
than reimbursements, but this is an issue requiring some substantive assessment of their claims,
and does not by itself render their administrative complaint void.
As defendants note, the Ruhls’ claims might be deficient in more substantive ways. It is
not clear that requiring parents to set up appointments for therapy services would be
impermissible, given IDEA Part C’s general policy in favor of empowering families in their
individual capacities. See, e.g., 20 U.S.C. § 1431(a)(4). Nor is it certain that the Ruhls would
have any claim about a more general lack of ABA therapy providers in or around Richland
County, because a government generally cannot compel service providers to exist or to offer a
specific service. Cf. Barney v. Holzer Clinic, Ltd., 110 F.3d 1207, 1211 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding
that the government could not compel a hospital to participate in Medicaid). Finally, it is not
even evident that receiving fewer hours of therapy than the maximum for which W.R.’s IFSP
stated the government would reimburse represents any violation of an entitlement, given an
IFSP’s identity as the “description of the appropriate transition services for the infant or
toddler,” 20 U.S.C. § 1436(a)(3) (emphasis added), as opposed to the set of “mandated” or
“minimum” services.
These critiques speak to the substantive issue of whether the Ruhls’ complaint articulates
claims on which relief can be granted, not whether it complies with the necessary forms under
IDEA Part C. It may be that an examination of the Ruhls’ claims for, for example, failure to
-27-
Nos. 17-3420/3422
Nicola Ruhl, et. al v. State of Ohio Health Department, et al.
state a claim, will require them to be dismissed. On whether the Ruhls’ complaint complied with
the formal procedural requirements for raising their claim under IDEA Part C, however, the
answer is that it did, and thus the Ruhls are entitled a remand to continue their case.
V.
The reversal and remand applies to the Ruhls’ claims against the Ohio Department of
Health, as well as Richland Newhope. Both were parties to the second complaint, and unlike in
the case involving the first administrative complaint, the court below did not dismiss Richland
Newhope as a party before it dismissed the complaint. On appeal, Richland Newhope argues
that it has no liability for the claims presented in the second complaint because it “did not
provide and had no contractual duty to provide ABA therapy.” That issue is contested, however.
Indeed, on the Ruhls’ theory of the case, the fact that Richland Newhope did not provide ABA
therapy is precisely why they are liable for the lack of therapy delivered to W.R., given that
Richland Newhope was W.R.’s early intervention service coordinator. At this stage of the
litigation, we do not address further whether Richland Newhope may be independently liable.
VI.
The judgment in No. 17-3422, affirming the dismissal of the Ruhls’ first complaint, is
affirmed. The judgment in No. 17-3420, affirming the dismissal of the Ruhls’ second complaint,
is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
-28-