STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Student v. Suffield Board of Education - CT SDE Case No. 05-0096
Case No. 05-0096
Issued Corrected May 24, 2005
Student v. Suffield Board of Education
Appearing for the Student: Howard Klebanoff, Esq. Klebanoff & Alfano, P.C. 433 South Main Street, Suite 102 West Hartford, CT 06110
Appearing for the Board: Pro Se (through Dr. Anne Loughrain)
Appearing Before: Scott Myers, J.D., M.A. (Clinical Psychology) Hearing Officer
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER (CORRECTED)
The Final Decision and Order in this matter was issued on May 11, 2005. The Hearing Officer was subsequently advised that that Final Decision and Order incorrectly identified the Board’s appearance in this matter. This correction to the Final Decision and Order reflects that the Board was appearing pro se in this matter. No other change is being made to the Final Decision and Order, which provided in its entirety as follows: “The Parents commenced this action on behalf of the Student, who is almost four years old. The Parents state that the Student has been diagnosed with autism and attends the May Center. The Parents state further that at a PPT convened on March 28, 2005, they requested that the District fund a placement of the Student at the May Center for the summer of 2005 and for the 2005/2006 school year, and that the District fund the “home components” of the Student’s program. The Parents state further that the District denied those requests and that the Parents rejected the District’s proposed IEP and placement. The Parents thereafter commenced this hearing by request dated April 18, 2005. The date for issuance of the final decision and order in this matter was June 2, 2005. A pre-hearing conference (“PHC”) was scheduled for April 28, 2005. On April 26, 2005, counsel for the Parents advised that “a settlement has been reached” in this matter and the Parents were “withdrawing the request for due process without prejudice at this time.” Parents’ counsel advised further that “[u]pon receipt of the written agreement and execution of same” the Parents would submit a “request to withdraw the matter with prejudice.” To effectuate the intent of the parties, the Hearing Officer continued the April 28, 2005 PHC until May 12, 2005 to permit the parties an opportunity to finalize their settlement. The Hearing Officer directed that “[i]f the settlement is not finalized by that time, the parties should be prepared to establish a hearing schedule at the May 12, 2005 [PHC].” On May 6, 2005, counsel for the Parents advised that this matter had been settled and that the Parents were withdrawing their request for hearing with prejudice. Accordingly, the May 12, 2005 PHC is cancelled and this matter is dismissed with prejudice.”