STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Student v. Westport Board of Education - CT SDE Case No. 15-0438
Case No. 15-0438
Student v. Westport Board of Education[1]
Appearing on behalf of Student: Attorney Lawrence Berliner Law Office of Lawrence Berliner LLC 1720 Post Road East Suite 214E Westport, CT 06880
Appearing on behalf of the Board of Education: Attorney Marsha Moses Berchem Moses & Devlin PC 75 Broad Street Milford, CT 06460
Appearing before: Janis C. Jerman, Hearing Officer
A special education hearing in the above-captioned matter was requested by Student’s Attorney via Letter dated April 2, 2015.? It was received by the Board of Education (“BOE”) on April 2. The 30-day resolution period ended May 2 and the original deadline to mail the final decision and order was June 16. A telephonic pre-hearing conference was held on April 24. Attorney Berliner appeared on behalf of Student and Attorney Moses appeared on behalf of BOE. The following issues were identified:
1. Did the Board of Education provide Student with a free appropriate public education during the 2013-14 school year?
2. Did the Board of Education provide Student with a free appropriate public education during the 2014-15 school year?
3. Did the Board of Education timely and appropriately evaluate Student?
4. If the answer to Issues One, Two, or Three above are in the negative, what shall be the remedy?
5. Are Student’s Parents entitled to reimbursement for Dr. Cashman’s evaluation of Student?
6. Should Student be placed at Winston Preparatory School at the Board of Education’s expense?
Via e-mail dated April 30, Student’s Attorney requested an extension of the mailing date to allow the parties to schedule hearing dates in June. After fully considering the positions of the parties, the request was granted and the deadline to mail the final decision and order was extended until July 15, 2015. The parties were scheduled for a resolution session on May 4. Hearing was scheduled for June 25. On June 23, Student’s Attorney indicated via email that the parties finalized a settlement agreement and withdrew Student’s due process request with prejudice.
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER:
In light of the above facts, the above-captioned case is dismissed with prejudice.
Footnotes
[1] In order to comply with the confidentiality requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 ULS.C, § 1232g (“FERPA”) and related regulations at 34 CFR § 99, this decision uses “Student”, “Parents”, “School” and titles of school staff members and certain other witnesses in place of names and other personally identifiable information. ; ” All dates are 2015 unless otherwise indicated.