Special Education Hearing Officer


Child’s Name: [redacted]

Date of Birth: [redacted]

Dates of Hearing:1 June 21, 2016 July 28, 2016 October 5, 2016 October 24, 2016 October 26, 2016 November 30, 2016 December 6, 2016


ODR Case #17531-1516AS

Parties to the Hearing: Parent[s]

Mt. Lebanon School District 7 Horsman Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15228


Edward Feinstein, Esquire 429 Forbes Avenue
Suite 1300
Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Patricia Andrews, Esquire 1500 Ardmore Boulevard Suite 506
Pittsburgh, PA 15221

Date of Decision: December 31, 2016

Hearing Officer: Michael J. McElligott, Esquire


[The Student] (“student”)2 is a [mid-teenaged] student residing in the Mt. Lebanon 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”)3 for specially designed instruction/related services as a student with autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Parent claims that the student was denied a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) over multiple school years— the 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and the current 2016-2017 school years.4 Parent claims compensatory education as a remedy. Additionally, parent claims that the District has violated its obligations to the student under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”).5

The District counters that at all times it provided FAPE to the student for the period of the student’s enrollment. As such, the District argues that the parent is not entitled to remedy.

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


Did the District provide the student with FAPE
over the 2014-2015, 2015-2016, or 2016-2017 school years?

If not, is the student entitled to compensatory education?

Is the District liable for remedy
for alleged failure in its obligations under Section 504?


Leave a Reply