SH vs. Pennsylvania Virtual Charter School

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

DECISION

Child’s Name: S.H.

Date of Birth: [Redacted]

ODR No. 2120-11-12-AS
ODR No. 2552-11-12-AS
ODR No. 2652-11-12-AS

CLOSED HEARING

Parties to the Hearing: Parent

Pennsylvania Virtual Charter School 1 West Main Street, Suite 400 Norristown, PA 19401

Representative:

Elizabeth Kapo, Esquire 2123 Pinehurst Road Bethlehem PA 18018

Nicole D. Snyder, Esquire
Latsha Davis Yohe & McKenna, P.C. 350 Eagleview Boulevard, Suite 100 Exton, PA 19341

Dates of Hearings: January 27, 2012; February 7, 2012; March 5, 2012; March 12, 2012

Record Closed: April 19, 2012

Date of Decision: May 5, 2012

Hearing Officer: William F. Culleton, Jr., Esquire, CHO

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The child named in the title page of this decision (Student) is enrolled in the school named in the title page of this decision (School). (NT 19-20.) In these three matters, which were heard together and which are decided together in this decision, the School brings No. 2120 pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (IDEA), and the Pennsylvania Code, 22 Pa. Code §14.151 et seq. The School requests an order authorizing an evaluation notwithstanding the refusal of Student’s parent, named on the title page of this decision (Parent), to consent to such evaluation.

Parent brings Nos. 2552 and 2652 pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (IDEA), the Pennsylvania Code, 22 Pa. Code §14.151 et seq., and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794 (section 504). Parent requests compensatory education for Student, asserting that the School failed to offer or provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE), and requests that the hearing officer order the School to provide all services in the Student’s home, removing Student from an Intermediate Unit Multiple Disabilities Support classroom to which Students is assigned at present for half day sessions. Parent also asserts retaliation and discrimination on account of disability.

The hearing was concluded in four sessions, and the records were combined for all three matters. The record closed upon receipt of written summations.

ISSUES

1. Should the hearing officer authorize the School to conduct a pediatric neurological evaluation of the Student in the absence of parental consent?

2. Did the School provide an appropriate placement to Student during the relevant period, from January 1, 2010 until February 7, 2012, and was the Intermediate Unit’s multiple disabilities classroom an appropriate setting for Student?

3. Did the School fail to offer or provide a FAPE to Student during the relevant period?

4. Did the School fail to provide a FAPE to Student during the relevant period by denying or limiting Parent’s access to observe the Student’s program?

5. Did the School discriminate against Student on account of disability, contrary to its obligations under section 504?

6. Did the School retaliate against Student for Parent’s filing of a Complaint Notice under the IDEA and section 504?

7. Should the hearing officer order the School to provide compensatory education to Student for all or part of the relevant period?

8. Should the hearing officer order the School to provide all services within Student’s home?

S-H-Pennsylvania-Virtual-Charter-ODR-No-2120-11-12-AS-ODRNo-2552-11-12-AS-ODRNo-2652-11-12-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.