BD vs. Pennsbury School District

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.D.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

Dates of Hearing:
June 30, July 30, August 18, August 19, September 2, September 7, 2010

CLOSED HEARING

ODR Case # 00865-0910KE

Parties to the Hearing:

Parent[s]

Beverly Ryan
Supervisor of Special Education Pennsbury School District
134 Yardley Avenue
P.O. Box 338
Fallsington, PA 19058

Representative:

Ilene Young, Esq.
50 East Court Street Doylestown, PA 18901

Gail Weilheimer, Esq.
Wisler Pearlstine
484 Norristown Road/Suite 100 Blue Bell, PA 19422

Date Record Closed: September 29, 2010

Date of Decision: October 13, 2010

Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire

 

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Student is an early teen-aged student residing in the Pennsbury School District (“District”) who has been identified as a student with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEIA”) and Pennsylvania special education regulations (“Chapter 14”).1 The parties agree that the student qualifies under these provisions of law as a student with an emotional disturbance and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”). The parties disagree over the student’s special education programming. Specifically, the student’s parents allege that, through multiple acts and omissions, the District has denied the student a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) as required under IDEIA and Chapter 14, for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years, including extended school year (“ESY”) services over the summers of 2009 and 2010. Additionally, the parents allege that those acts and omissions have violated the District’s duties under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (specifically under Section 504 of that statute, hence the follow-on reference to this section as “Section 504”).2 Parents seek compensatory education as a result of these alleged deprivations and reimbursement of tuition for the private

1 It is this hearing officer’s preference to cite to the pertinent federal implementing regulations of the IDEIA at 34 C.F.R. §§300.1-300.818.
2 It is this hearing officer’s preference to cite to the pertinent federal implementing regulations of Section 504 at 34 C.F.R. §§104.1-104.61. See also 22 PA Code §§15.1- 15.11 wherein Pennsylvania education regulations explicitly adopt the provisions of 34 C.F.R. §§104.1-104.61 for the protection of “protected handicapped students”. 22 PA Code §§15.1, 15.10.

summer programming in the summer of 2010. The District counters that at all times it has provided a FAPE to the student and met its obligations under IDEIA, Chapter 14, and Section 504.

For the reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the student.

ISSUES

Has the student been denied FAPE by the District under the terms of IDEIA/Chapter 14 and/or Section 504?

Has the student, on the basis of handicap, been excluded from participation in, been denied the benefits of, or otherwise been subjected to, discrimination on the part of the District under the terms of Section 504?

If the answer to either or both of these two questions is in the affirmative, is compensatory education, or tuition reimbursement, owed to the student?

B-D-Pennsbury-ODRNo-00865-0910KE

Leave a Reply

Pennsylvania

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

Rate By
SUPER LAWYERS
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.