Less frequently than you might expect, a court case within the booming world of special education litigation focuses on the evaluation practices of a school psychologist. The appropriateness of such practices merits comparative examination from both professional and legal perspectives. This article contains the facts for examination under these separate lenses. The student in this case study attended a private school for kindergarten, a public school for first grade, and a private school for second grade. During first grade, the school team evaluated him and found him ineligible for special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), but provided him with a Section 504 plan. This plan included extended testing time, repeated directions as needed, meetings with the school counselor, and the use of sensory devices for relaxation. After the parents obtained two private diagnoses of Asperger's disorder, the school added further accommodations in the Section 504 plan. In August 2011, the parents filed for a due process hearing against the district. They claimed that the district's first and second evaluations and, thus, the eligibility determinations, violated the IDEA, thus entitling them to compensatory education. Based on the information recounted, two school psychologists provide their responses to a series of questions and the parents' corresponding arguments. A summary of the court's ruling in this case ("Timothy F. v. Antietam School District," 2014) for each of the questions comes immediately after the two school psychologists' answers.