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. U.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

Dates of Hearing:

December 21, 2015
February 4, 2016
February 15, 2016
March 3, 2016

ODR Case # 16808-1516AS

Parties to the Hearing:


Redbank Valley School District 920 Broad Street
New Bethlehem, PA 16242


Charles Steele, Esquire
428 Forbes Avenue / Suite 700 Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Michael Musone, Esquire
120 West Tenth Street / Suite 503 Erie, PA 16501

Date Record Closed: March 29, 2016

Date of Decision: April 19, 2016

Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire



Student (hereinafter “student”)1 is an elementary school age student who resides in the Redbank Valley School District (“District”). Since first being evaluated by the District in the 2013-2014 school year, over the ensuing school years the student was found to be not eligible for special education as a student with a disability under the terms of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEIA”) and Pennsylvania special education regulations (“Chapter 14”).2 In August 2015, the student was identified as a student with a disability, specifically as a student with autism.

Parents claim that the student should have been identified earlier and, as a result, was denied a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”). Parents seek compensatory education as a remedy.

The District counters that, at all times over the course of the school years at issue, it met its obligations to the student under IDEIA/Chapter 14. Consequently, the District claims that no remedy is owed.

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



Should the student have been identified under the terms of IDEIA/Chapter 14 earlier than August 2015?

If so,
is compensatory education owed to the student?



Leave a Reply