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
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
DUE PROCESS HEARING
File No.: 13855/12-13KE
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).
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