Special Education Hearing Officer


Child’s Name: D.C.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

Dates of Hearing:

November 15, 2013 November 25, 2013 December 20, 2013 January 8, 2014 January 9, 2014


ODR Case #14229-1314KE

Parties to the Hearing:


Philadelphia School District 440 North Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19130


Jennifer Sang, Esquire
David Berney, Esquire
8 Penn Center
1628 J.F.K. Boulevard / Suite 1000 Philadelphia, PA 19103

Michele Mintz, Esquire
Levin Legal Group
1301 Masons Mill Business Park 1800 Byberry Road / Suite 1301 Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006

Date Record Closed: February 3, 2014

Date of Decision: February 19, 2014

Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire



Student is an elementary school age 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 intellectual disability.

The parent claims that the District failed to provide a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) to the student for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years, and the current 2013-2014 school year, including extended school year programming (“ESY”) for the summers 2012 and 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.


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.

Was the student provided with a free appropriate public education for
the 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and current 2013-2014 school years?

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



Leave a Reply