With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the HO’s decision that the October 23, 2002, IEP was inadequate to provide Grant with a FAPE. 5 . As stated previously, because of his ADD, Grant was found eligible for special education by the District under the Other Health Impairment ("OHI") category rather than qualification on the basis of a "specific learning disability.” See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26); Cal. Educ.Code §§ 56337, 56026(b) (setting forth the four eligibility criteria for a "specific learning disability”). Grant's parents contested the District's finding that Grant did not have a "specific learning disability” at the SEHO hearing, but did not contest this matter before this court. 6 . Other circuits have interpreted the standard in various ways. See, e.g., Fort Zumwalt Sch. Dist. v. Clynes, 119 F.3d 607, 610 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Hartmann v. Loudoun County Bd. of Educ., 118

A: holding that if no evidence was presented to support the prevailing party there is no evidence upon which to apply the substantial evidence test and therefore the capricious disregard standard applies
B: holding that the court of appeals must consider and weigh all of the evidence and may only set aside the finding if the evidence is so weak or if the finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and unjust
C: holding that the weight due is less than that under the substantial evidence test but court should consider the state hearing panels expertise and opportunity to observe demeanor evidence
D: holding that the trial court can and should grant a new trial if the manifest weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict
C.