LS vs. Ambridge Area School District

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

DECISION

Child’s Name: L.S.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

Dates of Hearing:

July 16, 2012 August 7, 2012

CLOSED HEARING

ODR Case #3219-1112AS

Parties to the Hearing: Parents

Ambridge Area School District 901 Duss Avenue
Ambridge, PA 15003

Representative: Pro Se

Aimee Zundel, Esq. 445 Fort Pitt Boulevard Suite 503
Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Date Record Closed: August 7, 2012

Date of Decision: August 21, 2012

Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[Name redacted] (“student”) is [an elementary school-aged] student residing in the Ambridge Area School District (“District”). The parties agree that the student qualifies under the terms of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEIA”)1 for specially designed instruction/related services for a speech and language impairment. After evaluating the student to determine the student’s eligibility for additional special education services, the District determined that the student did not qualify as a student with a disability. Parents disputed this filing and requested an independent educational evaluation (“IEE”) at public expense. The District requested a special education due process hearing to defend the results of its evaluation.

[Redacted.]

ISSUES
Must the District provide an IEE at public expense?

L-S-Ambridge-Area-ODRNo-3219-1112AS

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.