MS vs. Midd-West School District

DECISION
COVER SHEET

DUE PROCESS SPECIAL EDUCATION HEARING

FILE NUMBER: 3264/11-12AS

RESPONDENT/SCHOOL DISTRICT (LEA): Midd-West School District

SCHOOL DISTRICT COUNSEL: Sharon O’Donnell, Esquire

STUDENT: M.S.

PETITIONER/PARENTS: Parents

COUNSEL FOR STUDENT/PARENT Phillip Drumheiser, Esquire

INITIATING PARTY: Parents

DATE OF DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT: June 12, 2012

DATE OF HEARING: July 18 and 19, 2012

PLACE OF HEARING: Midd-West High School

OPEN vs. CLOSED HEARING: Closed

STUDENT PRESENT: No

RECORD: Verbatim-Court Reporter

DECISION TYPE: Electronic

DUE DATE FOR DECISION: August 26, 2012

HEARING OFFICER: James Gerl, Certified Hearing Official

DECISION

DUE PROCESS HEARING

File No.: 3264/11-12

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

A prehearing conference by telephone conference call was convened herein on June 29, 2012. As a result of said conference, a prehearing conference Order was entered herein. Said Order is incorporated herein by reference.

At said prehearing conference, counsel for the parties informed the hearing officer that all issues contained in the due process complaint, except the issue of compensatory education if there had been a violation of IDEA, were resolved by the parties by mutual agreement at the resolution session herein.

No motions to extend the hearing officer’s decision deadline were filed in this case. The deadline for the hearing officer’s decision is August 26, 2012.

Prior to the hearing, counsel for the parties filed a joint prehearing memorandum. Such memorandum contained numerous stipulations of fact, and it defined the issue 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).

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue presented in this due process hearing, as identified by the parties in the prehearing conference and confirmed in their joint prehearing memorandum, is as follows:

1. Should Respondent be ordered to provide compensatory education to the student?

M-S-Midd-West-School-District-ODRNo-3264-11-12AS

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.