Special Education Hearing Officer


Child’s Name: DG

Date of Birth: xx/xx/xx

Dates of Hearing:
September 11, 2006, September 28, 2006

ODR #6816/ 06-07 LS

Parties to the Hearing: Mr. and Mrs.

Bethlehem Area School District 1516 Sycamore Street Bethelehem PA 18017-6099


Angela Uliana- Murphy, Esquire 807 William Street
P.O. Box 97
Pen Argyl PA 18072

Hollie John, Esquire
Sweet, Stevens, Tucker & Katz P.O. Box 6059
New Britain PA 18901

Date Record Closed: September 28, 2006

Date of Decision: October 13, 2006

Hearing Officer: William F. Culleton, Jr., Esquire



Student is a xx year old student of the Bethlehem Area School District who is considered eligible for a plan of services under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794 (1973). (NT 17-11 to 18-20.) He is in tenth grade. (NT 19-21 to 25.) His Parents, Mr. and Mrs. seek reversal of the District’s manifestation determination of June 21, 2006. (NT 26-11.) They assert that the Student’s admitted act of bringing prescription medicine to school and handing it to another student was impulsive and a manifestation of his diagnosed ADHD, and that the District did not give proper consideration to the evidence at the manifestation determination session. The District contends that the Student’s ADHD does not typically manifest itself in impulsiveness, and that the Student’s behavior was not impulsive because it was planned over a period of several days.


  1. Did the manifestation team err in determining that the Student’s behavior was not a manifestation of his disability?
  2. Did the manifestation review team review all relevant information, including relevant information provided by the Parents in determining whether or not the Student’s behavior was a manifestation of his disability?

Leave a Reply