ES vs. Middleburg Elementary School

DECISION
DUE PROCESS SPECIAL EDUCATION HEARING

FILE NUMBER: 13855/12-13KE

RESPONDENT/SCHOOL DISTRICT (LEA): Midd-West School District

SCHOOL DISTRICT COUNSEL: Sharon O’Donnell, Esquire

STUDENT: E.S.

PETITIONER/PARENTS: Parents

COUNSEL FOR STUDENT/PARENT Drew Christian, Esquire

INITIATING PARTY: Parents

DATE OF DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT: May 8, 2013

DATES OF HEARING: June 21 and August 28, 2013

PLACE OF HEARING: Middleburg Elementary School

OPEN vs. CLOSED HEARING: Closed

STUDENT PRESENT: No RECORD: Verbatim-Court Reporter

DECISION TYPE: Electronic

DUE DATE FOR DECISION: October 2, 2013

HEARING OFFICER: James Gerl, Certified Hearing Official

DECISION

DUE PROCESS HEARING

File No.: 13855/12-13KE

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

A prehearing conference by telephone conference call was convened herein on May 31, 2013. As a result of said conference, a prehearing conference Order was entered herein. Said Order is incorporated herein by reference.

At said prehearing conference and thereafter, counsel for the school district made two motions to extend the decision deadline of the hearing officer which were granted. The deadline for the hearing officer’s decision is October 2, 2013.

Prior to the hearing, counsel for the parents filed a motion to recuse the hearing officer. Said motion was denied by written order. Said Order is incorporated by reference herein.

Prior to the hearing, counsel for the parties filed a joint prehearing memorandum. Such memorandum contained stipulations of fact and it defined the issues presented for purposes of this due process hearing. Said memorandum also contained information concerning exhibits and witnesses. The parties’ joint prehearing memorandum is incorporated by reference herein.

Subsequent to the hearing, both parties filed written briefs and proposed findings of fact. All proposed findings, conclusions and supporting arguments submitted by the parties have been considered. To the extent that the proposed findings, conclusions and arguments advanced by the parties are in accordance with the findings, conclusions and views stated herein, they have been accepted, and to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith, they have been rejected. Certain proposed findings and conclusions have been omitted as not relevant or as not necessary to a proper determination of the material issues as presented. To the extent that the testimony of various witnesses is not in accord with the findings as stated herein, it is not credited.

Personally identifiable information, including the names of parties and similar information is provided on the cover sheet hereto which should be removed prior to distribution of this decision to the public. FERPA, 20 U.S.C. § 1232(g) and IDEA § 617(c).

ISSUES PRESENTED

The issues presented in this due process hearing, as identified by the parties in the prehearing conference and confirmed in their joint prehearing memorandum, as clarified by the hearing officer, are as follows:

1. Did the school district fail to implement the student’s IEPs by failing to provide assistive technology devices listed in the IEP?

2. Did the school district fail to provide the student a free and appropriate public education by failing to develop appropriate IEPs for the student for (a) the 2011-2012 school year and (b) the 2012-2013 school year?

3. Did the school district fail to provide the student a free and appropriate public education by failing to provide adequate related services for the student in the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years?

4. Did the school district deny a free and appropriate public education to the student by failing to provide adequate transportation services for the 2012-2013 school year?

E-S-Midd-West-ODRNo-13855-12-13KE

Leave a Reply

Pennsylvania

Montgomery Law, LLC
1420 Locust Street, Suite 420
Philadelphia, PA 19102
T/F. 215-650-7563

Rate By
SUPER LAWYERS
Joseph W Montgomery, II

New Jersey

Historic Smithville, Suite 1
1 N. New York Road
Galloway, NJ 08205
(all mail to Phila. office)
T. 856-282-5550

Disclaimer: Montgomery Law, LLC does not give legal advice until after it has entered into an attorney-client relationship. No part of this website creates an attorney-client relationship. All Parts of this website are Attorney Advertising. The photos and videos on this website contain portrayals of clients by non-clients, re-enactment of scenes, pictures and persons which are not actual or authentic and depictions which are a dramatization.