LH vs. Riverview School District

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

DECISION

Child’s Name: L. H.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

June 11, 2015

CLOSED HEARING

ODR Case # 16109-1415AS

Parties to the Hearing: Parent

Riverview School District 701 10th Street
Verona, PA 15147

Representative: Pro Se

Rachel Lozosky, Esquire Peacock Keller
70 East Beau Street Washington, PA 15301

Date Record Closed: June 14, 2015

Date of Decision: July 14, 2015

Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire

INTRODUCTION

Student is an elementary school age student residing in the Riverview School District (“District”) who has been identified as a student with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEA”)1. The student has been identified under the terms of IDEA as a student with autism. The student’s father claims that the District has failed in its obligations to the student in how it has handled the student’s transportation, specifically as to its procedures for drop-off at the end of the student’s school day.2 The District counters that, in the transportation arrangements for the student by both design and implementation in the student’s individualized education plan (“IEP”), there has been no denial of a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”).

For the reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the District.

ISSUE

Did the District deny the student FAPE in its handling of the student’s transportation under the terms of the student’s IEP?

L-H-Riverview-ODRNo-16109-1415AS

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.