CD vs. Great Valley School District

This is a redacted version of the original hearing officer decision. Select details may have been
removed from the decision to preserve anonymity of the student. The redactions do not affect the
substance of the document.

Special Education Hearing Officer


Child’s Name: CD
Date of Birth: xx/xx/xx

Dates of Hearing:
8-8-07, 9-11-07, 9-27-07, 10-18-07, 10-23-07, 10-30-07, 11-
ODR #7801/06-07 AS

Parties to the Hearing:
Ms. Anita Riccio
Great Valley School District
47 Church Road
Malvern, PA 19355-1539
Caryl A. Oberman. Esquire
Grove Summit Office Park
607A North Easton Road
Willow Grove, PA 19090
Gina K. DePietro, Esquire
Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams, LLP
P.O. Box 5069
New Britain, PA 18901

Date Record Closed: November 7, 2007

Date of Decision: November 25, 2007

Hearing Officer: William F. Culleton, Jr.,



Student is a xx year old resident of the Great Valley School District, enrolled at the [redacted] Middle School. She is diagnosed with neurological disorder and seizure disorder, and is classified educationally with Autism. Her Parents, request an order that the District provide the Student with educational services, including inclusion with typical students of the Student’s age, in a District school location. They also request compensatory education for the District’s alleged failure to provide adequate services and inclusion in the two years prior to filing as well as the time since filing their request for due process. The District offers educational services in an autistic support class in a separate building for children with disabilities operated by the [redacted] Intermediate Unit. It asserts that this offers the Student a reasonable opportunity for educational benefit. There is no autistic support class in the District’s buildings, and none could be obtained outside the District. The District asserts that it is not obligated to create a separate class just for the Student, that it can provide adequate medical services at the IU location, and that the Parents obstructed the provision of services, precluding compensatory relief.


  1. Did the District deprive the Student of FAPE by declining to provide nursing services to her while she was a student in the autistic support classroom in the [redacted] elementary school during the 2005 to 2006 school year?
  2. Did the District provide meaningful educational benefit to the Student in the least restrictive setting during the 2006 to 2007 school year, through its placement of the Student in the learning support classroom of [redacted] middle school?
  3. Was the District’s offer of an autistic support class in a special education school without inclusion opportunities, during the 2007-2008 school year, reasonably calculated to provide meaningful educational benefit to the Student in the least restrictive setting?
  1. Has the District failed to provide meaningful educational benefit to the Student during the 2007-2008 school year?
  2. Should compensatory education be awarded for the District’s failure to provide the Student with educational services reasonably calculated to provide meaningful educational benefit in the least restrictive setting during the 2005 to 2006, 2006 to 2007 and 2007-2008 school years?

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.