Ch vs. Philadelphia 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: C.H.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

Dates of Hearing:

August 23, 2013
September 26, 2013
September 27, 2013
October 10, 2013
October 11, 2013
October 17, 2013

CLOSED HEARING

ODR Case #14056-1213KE

Parties to the Hearing:

Parent

Philadelphia School District 440 North Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19130

Representative:

Sonja Kerr, Esquire
Public Interest Law Center
1790 Benjamin Franklin Parkway 2nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Mr. Brian Subers, Esquire
Fox Rothschild LLP
10 Sentry Parkway / Suite 200 P.O. Box 3001
Blue Bell, PA 19422-3001

Date Record Closed: November 1, 2013

Date of Decision: November 11, 2013

Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire

 

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Student (“student”) is a [teenaged] student residing in the Philadelphia School District (“District”). The parties agree that the student qualifies under the terms of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEA”)1 for specially designed instruction/related services for autism and speech and language impairment.

The parent claims that the District failed to provide a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) to the student for the 2012-2013 school year, including extended school year programming (“ESY”) for summer 2013. Parent also claims that the District has violated its obligations to the student under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”).2 As a result, the parent claims compensatory education for these alleged deprivations. Additionally, parent seeks directives for the student’s individualized education plan (“IEP”) team.3

The District counters that, at all times, it met its obligations to the student under IDEA and Section 504. As such, the District argues that no remedy is owed to the student.

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

 

ISSUES

Was the student provided with a free appropriate public education for the 2012-2013 school year?

If not, is parent entitled to compensatory education and/or other remedy?

 

C-H-Philadelphia-ODRNo-14056-1213KE

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.