This is a redacted version of the original decision. Select details have been removed from the
decision to preserve anonymity of the student. The redactions do not affect the substance of
the document.
Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer
DECISION
Child’s Name: B.C.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
ODR No. 16713-15-16-KE
CLOSED HEARING
Parties to the Hearing:
Parent[s]
Fleetwood Area School District 801 North Richmond Street Fleetwood, PA 19522-1031
Representative:
Jennifer Lukach Bradley, Esquire McAndrews Law Offices
30 Cassatt Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
David F. Conn, Esquire
Sweet, Stevens, Katz and Williams, LLP 331 East Butler Avenue
New Britain, PA 18901
Date of Hearing: September 29, 2015
Record Closed: October 13, 2015
Date of Decision: October 24, 2015
Hearing Officer: William F. Culleton, Jr., Esquire, CHO
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The child named in this matter (Student)1 is a resident of the District named in this matter (District), and began ninth grade this year at a District high school. Student’s mother (Parent) filed this due process request, asking only that the hearing officer determine that Student is eligible for special education services pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (IDEA). The District asserts that Student, while admittedly diagnosed with and experiencing the symptoms of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), is not in need of special education because Student’s disability does not adversely impact Student’s access to the curriculum.
The hearing was completed in one session. I have determined the credibility of all witnesses and I have considered and weighed all of the evidence of record. I conclude that Parent has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Student is an eligible child with a disability as defined by the IDEA. Therefore, I decline to enter the order that Parent seeks.
ISSUES
1. Is Student an eligible child with a disability as defined by the IDEA?