JC vs. Cumberland Valley School District

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

Student’s Name: J.C.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

ODR No. 14638-1314KE

CLOSED HEARING

Parties to the Hearing: Parent[s]

Cumberland Valley School District 6746 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg, PA 17050

Representative:

Phillip A. Drumheiser, Esq. P.O. Box 890
Carlisle, PA 17013

Mark. W. Walz, Esq.
Sweet Stevens Katz & Williams, LLP 331 E. Butler Ave.
New Britain, PA 18601

Dates of Hearing: 08/07/2014, 10/08/2014, 12/12/2014

Record Closed: 01/16/2015

Date of Decision: 02/03/2015

Hearing Officer: Brian Jason Ford

Introduction

This matter concerns the educational rights of J.C. (Student), who until recently was a student in the Cumberland Valley School District (District). The hearing was requested by the Student’s Parents (Parents). The Parents claim that the District violated the Student’s rights under both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 34 C.F.R. Part 104.4.

More specifically, the Parents claim that the District violated its Child Find obligation by failing to determine whether the Student was a child with a disability. The Parents argue that the Student should have been evaluated, and that the District should have concluded that the Student was IDEA-eligible. Thereafter, the Parents argue that the Student should have received special education pursuant to an individualized education plan (IEP). The Parents further claim that the District discriminated against the Student on the basis of his disability in violation of Section 504. The Parents claim that the District violated the Student’s rights vis-à-vis disciplinary proceedings. The Parents also claim that the District did not properly comply with records requests.

The District denies all of these claims. Although the District agrees that the Student is protected by Section 504, the District disputes that the Student is IDEA-eligible. The District claims that its Child Find and disciplinary procedures were legally compliant, and that it did not discriminate against the Student in any way.

Issues1

  1. Did the District violate its Child Find duties by failing to identify the Student?
  2. Did the District violate its duty to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the Student?
  3. Did the District discriminate against the Student in violation of Section 504?
  4. Did the District violate any of the Student’s rights through disciplinary actions?
  5. Did the District violate the Student or Parents’ right to access student records?

As remedies, the Parents demand compensatory education running from January 29, 2012 through the present2 and funding for an independent educational evaluation (IEE).

J-C-Cumberland-Valley-ODRNo-14638-1314KE

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.