AB Vs. East Lycoming School District


Special Education Hearing Officer


Child’s Name: A. B.

Date of Birth: xx/xx/xxxx

Dates of Hearing: 10/2/2008, 12/22/2008


ODR No. 9026/07-08 AS

Parties to the Hearing:

Parents :


Drew Christian,

Esq. Attorney-at-Law

801 Monroe Avenue Scranton,

PA 18510

School District:

Susan L. Bigger, Superintendent

East Lycoming School District

349 Cemetery Street Hughesville,

PA 17737-1028

School District Attorney:

Jeffrey Champagne,

Esq. McNees, Wallace & Nurick 100

Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg,

PA 17108-1166


Date Record Closed:

January 16, 2009

Date of Decision: January 30, 2009

Hearing Officer: Daniel J. Myers



(Student) 1 is an adolescent student of the East Lycoming School District (School District). Student’s Parents contend that, since the 2006-2007 school year and through the current 2008-2009 school year, Student’s (Individualized Education Programs) IEPs have been inappropriate and Student has not been placed in the least restrictive environment (LRE). After two due process hearing sessions and review of the parties’ written closing arguments, I find for the School District for the reasons described below.


Whether the School District failed to provide a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) to Student for the 2006-2007 school year? Whether the School District failed to provide FAPE to Student for the 2007-2008 school year? Whether Student’s current 2008-2009 program and placement are appropriate?


Leave a Reply


Montgomery Law, LLC
1420 Locust Street, Suite 420
Philadelphia, PA 19102
T/F. 215-650-7563

Rate By
Joseph W Montgomery, II

New Jersey

Historic Smithville, Suite 1
1 N. New York Road
Galloway, NJ 08205
(all mail to Phila. office)
T. 856-282-5550

Disclaimer: Montgomery Law, LLC does not give legal advice until after it has entered into an attorney-client relationship. No part of this website creates an attorney-client relationship. All Parts of this website are Attorney Advertising. The photos and videos on this website contain portrayals of clients by non-clients, re-enactment of scenes, pictures and persons which are not actual or authentic and depictions which are a dramatization.