GD vs. North Penn School District

PENNSYLVANIA
SPECIAL EDUCATION HEARING OFFICER

DECISION
DUE PROCESS HEARING

Name of Child: GT

ODR #9512/08-09 AS

Date of Birth: xx/xx/xx

Date of Hearing: February 10, 2009

CLOSED HEARING

Parties to the Hearing: Mr. and Mrs.

North Penn School District 401 E. Hancock Street Lansdale, Pennsylvania 19446

Representative:
Frederick Stanczak, Esquire
179 North Broad Street Doylestown, Pennsylvania 18901

Brian Ford, Esquire
Dischell, Bartle, Yanoff & Dooley PO Box 107 1800 Pennbrook Lansdale, Pennsylvania 19446

Date Record Closed: March 9, 2009

Date of Decision: March 23, 2009

Hearing Officer: Linda M. Valentini, Psy.D.

Background

Student is an early teen aged eligible 7th grade student who is enrolled in the North Penn School District. Student has a severe seizure disorder and has daily seizures such that throughout the school day Student is provided with a one-to-one aide who is a nurse. The issue in this hearing involves afternoon transportation services. The District has offered Student school-to-home transportation on the small school bus (hereinafter small school bus) which Student rides to school in the morning. However, Student and Student’s parents, Mr. and Mrs. (hereinafter Parents) want Student to ride home on the District’s large school bus (hereinafter large school bus) instead of on the small school bus.

The hearing was convened for one session, with the intent to reconvene by teleconference at the convenience of Student’s treating physician who was to testify for the Parents. The Parents ultimately decided not to call the physician as a witness, so the record was closed when Closing Arguments were received.

Prior to the hearing the District objected to the admission of one of the Parents’ exhibits (P-4). Because Student’s physician, the author of the document, was scheduled to testify the hearing officer admitted the document. Upon learning, well after the conclusion

of the first hearing session, that this witness would not be available for examination and cross examination, the District renewed its objection to the document. This hearing officer must agree with the District, and therefore is removing the exhibit P-4 from the official record of this hearing. Had it remained as an admitted exhibit, this hearing officer would have been inclined to give it little weight as the physician was not available for examination or cross- examination as to Student’s specific knowledge of the conditions on the large school bus and as to what if anything had changed since his correspondence of May 9, 2008 wherein he prescribed home schooling due to the frequency of Student’s seizures.1

Issue

Must the District allow Student to ride home on the District school bus (large school bus) as opposed to the transportation (small school bus) currently offered by the District?

GT-North-Penn-ODRNo-9512-08-09-AS

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.