← All d.c. tools

D.C. Tool 22: The theory of the case

Reviewed previewThis page shows the reviewed public portion and the exact outline of the member edition.What the labels mean

THE RULE

A theory of the case is one sentence, not a folder. It names the claim you will win, the relief that claim supports, and the fact in your record that decides it, and every exhibit, every witness, and every minute of hearing time exists to prove that one sentence true. In a jurisdiction where the district carries the burden on everything, a theory can be built around a single question: what did the district do wrong. The District of Columbia does not let you stop there, because who has to persuade the hearing officer of your theory depends on which claim category the theory lives in. D.C.'s hybrid burden regime assigns persuasion claim by claim, not party by party (D.C. Code 38-2571.03(6)(A)-(B); 5-A DCMR 3053.6; DC-Tool 23), so a theory of the case drafted here has to state, in the same sentence, both what you are claiming and who ultimately has to prove it.

That means a workable D.C. theory sentence has three parts, not two: the claim, the relief you want that claim to support, and the burden posture that governs it. "The placement was wrong" is unfinished. "The placement was wrong, this is an appropriateness-of-placement claim, and once I clear the prima facie bar the persuasion burden on that specific issue shifts to DCPS" is a theory you can actually try, because it tells you, before you ever call a witness, what you have to prove yourself and what you only have to open the door on. A theory built on child find, implementation, or a procedural violation carries no such shift at all: those claims keep their persuasion burden with you from opening to closing, no matter how the appropriateness claims in the same case are allocated (DC-Tool 23). And a theory built on tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement is its own animal entirely, one where you keep both burdens the whole way on whether your own placement was appropriate, though the ordinary shift still applies to whether the agency's own program was appropriate once you clear the low prima facie bar, and where you face the risk that the hearing officer bifurcates the proceeding (D.C. Code 38-2571.03(6)(A)(ii); DC-Tool 23, DC-Tool 32). Naming which of those three worlds your theory lives in is not optional scaffolding. It is the difference between a hearing plan and a guess.

WHY IT MATTERS

Parents and even out-of-state counsel sometimes arrive with a theory-of-the-case template built for a jurisdiction where the agency defends everything, and that template quietly assumes a burden posture the District does not give most claims. The result is a hearing plan that spends its energy waiting for DCPS to disprove a claim that was never going to shift, while the claim that could have shifted goes unbuilt because nobody framed the prima facie showing it needed. A theory that ignores which claim category governs it is not a strategy. It is a bet on the wrong law.

The stakes are highest exactly where the theory looks strongest on its face. A reimbursement theory can feel like the easiest story to tell, since parents lived it and can describe every detail of the unilateral placement from memory. But that is precisely the claim where the District never shifts anything, and a theory built with reimbursement-shift language borrowed from an appropriateness claim will misallocate preparation time toward proving a burden the agency was never going to carry (DC-Tool 32).