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.S.

Date of Birth: [Redacted]

Dates of Hearing:

February 27, 2012 March 6, 2012 March 7, 2012 March 19, 2012 April 4, 2012


ODR Case # 2786-1112AS

Parties to the Hearing:

Moon Area School District 8353 University Boulevard Moon Township, PA 15108


John Rushford, Esquire Dodaro, Matta & Cambest, P.C. 1001 Ardmore Boulevard
Suite 100
Pittsburgh, PA 15221

Edward Feinstein, Esquire 429 Forbes Avenue
Allegheny Building/17th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Date Record Closed: April 26, 2012

Date of Decision: May 15, 2012

Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire



Student (hereinafter “student”) is a [late teen-aged] student residing in the Moon Area 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 Specifically, the student has been identified as a student as having an other health impairment.

Parents allege that numerous procedural and substantive errors and omissions over the course of the 2010-2011 school year denied the student a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) and specifically led to a series of events where the student was ultimately enrolled, by the parties’ mutual agreement, in a private placement for the 2011-2012 school year. Parents claim that the private placement, however, has been inappropriate. As a result of those denials of FAPE, parents claim a remedy of compensatory education. Additionally, parents make claims that the student was denied FAPE under the provisions of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”),2 as well as claims that the student suffered discrimination, prohibited by Section 504, as a result of the student’s disability status.

The District counters that the student was provided with FAPE in the 2010-2011 school year and has been provided with FAPE in the 2011-2012 school year. The District also argues that it met its obligations under Section 504.

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


Was the student provided with FAPE during the 2010-2011 school year?

Was the student provided with FAPE during the 2011-2012 school year?

If the answer to either, or both,
of the foregoing questions is “yes”,
is compensatory education owed to the student?

What, if any, remedy is owed to the student for alleged violations under Section 504?



Leave a Reply