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.

Special Education Hearing Officer


Child’s Name: C. G.

DateofBirth: [redacted]
Dates of Hearing: 10/5/2015, 11/3/2015, 11/23/2015, and 1/13/2016


ODR File No. 16753-15-16

Parties to the Hearing:

Parents Parent[s]

Local Education Agency Saucon Valley School District 2097 Polk Valley Road Hellertown, PA 18055


Parent Attorney
Angela Uliana-Murphy Esq. 106 N. Franklin St., Suite 2 P.O. Box 97
Pen Argyl, PA 18072

LEA Attorney
Karl Romberger Jr. Esq.
Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams, LLP 331 E. Butler Ave.
New Britain, PA 18901

Date Record Closed: February 5, 2016
Date of Decision: February, 26, 2016
Hearing Officer: Charles W. Jelley Esq. LL.M.



The Student, (Student)1 is an elementary age student in the School District (District) who the Parties agree is eligible for special education pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).2 The Student’s Parents filed a due process complaint against the District asserting a denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) under the IDEA, and state regulations implementing the IDEA.

The case proceeded to a due process hearing convening over several sessions, at which the parties presented evidence in support of their respective positions. The Parents sought to establish that the District failed to provide appropriate programming to address all of Student’s unique needs; they now seek compensatory education for the 2013-2014, 2014-2015 2015-2016 school years.

The Parents also made a claim for tuition reimbursement for a prospective placement in a private school for the remainder of 2015-2016 school year (J#1, p.4).3 The District maintains that its special education program, as designed, offered and implemented was at all times appropriate for the Student in all respects.

On September 11, 2015, the District filed an Answer to the Complaint denying the Student’s claim for compensatory education and prospective tuition reimbursement (SD # 2).4 For the reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the District. The District provided the Student with a FAPE for the 2013-2014, 2014- 2015 and the 2015-2016 school years. The Parents’ claims for compensatory education are denied, as is the claim for a prospective placement in a private school.


  1. Whether the District provided a Free Appropriate Public Education to Student from September 2013-2014 school year?
  1. Whether the District provided a Free Appropriate Public Education to Student from September 2014-2015 school year?
  2. Whether the District provided a Free Appropriate Public Education to Student from September 2015-2016 school year?
  3. Whether the Hearing Officer should order the District to pay for a private placement for the remainder of the 2015-2016 school year?



Leave a Reply