Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer
DECISION Child’s Name: D.G.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Dates of Hearing: 2/15/2017, 2/22/2017, 2/23/2017, 4/10/2017, 5/1/2017, 5/2/2017 and 5/8/2017
Closed HEARING
ODR File No. 18542-16-17
Parties to the Hearing:
Parents Parent[s]
Local Education Agency Great Valley School District 47 Church Road
Malvern, PA 19355
Representative:
Parent Attorney Pro Se
LEA Attorney
Lawrence Dodds Esq.
Blue Bell Executive Campus 460 Norristown Road, Suite 110 Blue Bell, PA 19422 610-825-8400 x 1360
Date of Decision: June 16, 2017
Hearing Officer: Charles W. Jelley, Esquire LL.M
INTRODUCTION
THE DETERMINATION OF THE SCOPE OF THE CLAIMS AND SCHOOL YEARS AT ISSUE
The Student (hereafter Student)1 is an early elementary school-aged student residing in the Great Valley School District (hereafter District).2 The Parties agree the Student is eligible for special education, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as a person with a Speech and Language Impairment. Initially, the Parents contended the District failed to provide specially- designed instruction to meet the Student’s Speech and Language needs. Just before calling their last witness, at the Sixth session, the Parents withdrew their claim for compensatory education for any alleged violations surrounding the Student’s IDEA Speech and Language specially-designed instruction.
The Parties currently disagree on whether the Student is IDEA eligible as a person with an Other Health Impairment. Shortly after enrolling in the District, the Student was diagnosed, by a physician, as a person with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
[Redacted.]
The Parents are seeking compensatory education to remedy the alleged … IDEA IEP violations.
The initial hearing session was delayed to allow the Parties time to sort through the multiple sufficiency challenges to the Parents’ IDEA Due Process Complaint, First Amended Complaint, and Second Amended Complaint. The District also filed a Motion to Limit the Scope of the Claims contending that certain IDEA and [redacted] claims were time barred. First, the District contends the Parent’s IDEA child find claims are time-barred under the IDEA’s two-year statute of limitations.3 Second, [redacted].
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
- Did the District’s 2016 re-evaluation fail to appropriately address the question of whether Student should be classified as having an Other Health Impairment due to a diagnosis of ADHD?
- [Redacted.]
- If the District failed in either of these regards, is Student entitled to
compensatory education, and if so what type and in what amount?