NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number:
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Dates of Hearing: September 25, 2012
November 13, 2012
November 29, 2012
December 18, 2012
January 15, 2013
February 7, 2013
April 10, 2013
May 29, 2013
Actual Record Closed Date: June 18, 2013
Hearing Officer: Judith Schneider, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED SEPTEMBER 25, 2012
Attorney — Student
(Via Telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED NOVEMBER 13, 2012
Attorney — Student
Representative — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED NOVEMBER 29, 2012
ESQ., Attorney — Student
ESQ., Attorney — Student
Parents
Parents
Chairperson's Designee, — DOE
Teacher, (Via Telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED DECEMBER 18, 2012
ESQ., Attorney — Student
ESQ., Attorney — Student
Parents
Parents
DOE
School (Via Telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JANUARY 15, 2013
ESQ., Attorney — Student
ESQ., Attorney — Student
Mother — Student
Father — Student
Dir. of, (Via Telephone) — Student
(Via Telephone) — Student
District Representative — DOE
School (Via Telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED FEBRUARY 7, 2013
ESQ., Attorney, — Student
ESQ., Attorney, — Student
Parent/Mother — Student
Parent/Father — Student
Teacher, School — Student
Chairperson's Designee, — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED APRIL 10, 2013
ESQ., Attorney — Student
ESQ., Attorney — Student
Parents
Parents
School, (Via Telephone) — Student
DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MAY 29, 2013
ESQ., Attorney — Student
ESQ., Attorney — Student
Parents
Parents
Dir. of, (Via Telephone) — Student
DOE Representative — DOE
On September 25, 2012, November 13, 2012, November 29, 2012, December18,
2012, January 15, 2013, February 7, 2013, April 10, 2013 and May 29, 2013, I conducted an Impartial Hearing at the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) Impartial Hearing Office, 131 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEIA”), 20 U.S.C. §1415, and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York, regarding the special education program of XXX (“the student”).
Procedural History
The proceeding was initiated at the request of the parent by correspondence dated September 5, 2012. (Ex. A) I was appointed Impartial Hearing Officer on September 6, 2012. I was available to conduct a hearing within 14 days. At a hearing on September 25, 2012, the parent requested an interim order regarding pendency. On September 27, 2012, the district was ordered to provide during the pendency of this matter RSAs for: ( ) minute ( ) sessions per week; ( ) ( ) services/ sessions per week; ( ) minute ( ) (“ ”) sessions per week ; ( ) minute ( ) / (“ ”) sessions per week; and a full time . (Ex. K)
At an October 21, 2012 conference with the parties, hearing dates were scheduled for the first mutually available date for the parties and the hearing officer. (Ex. I)
The current compliance date is July 19, 2013. The record closed on June 20, 2013, upon my receipt of the parent’s post-hearing memorandum. The DOE was given the opportunity to submit a memorandum but did not do so. (Ex. III) [1]
Background and Positions of the Parties
The student is a year old girl whose current classification is . The parent’s dispute that classification and assert that the student should be classified as a student with . (Ex. IV-4) She has been diagnosed with , ( ), ’s- ( ), , . and and . (Ex. DD)
The student is currently attending (“ ”) in which she was unilaterally placed by the parent. is a - school which is not designated by the New York State Education Department as a school with which a school district may contract for the delivery of services.
The student received services. (Ex. DD) Pursuant to a CPSE IEP, the student was enrolled in a and received , and support. (Ex. DD-3) Pursuant to CSE IEPs the student attended full time classes with related services in a District program in , remaining there until grade. (T. 515-516, Ex. DD-3) She initially made very substantial progress but in the grade, after a change of teachers and various paraprofessional changes, became , , and experienced and . (T. 518-522, 528-530, Ex, DD) School staff told the parent that the student was “ .” (T. 529) The student was unilaterally placed at , in 2009, and has remained there since that time. (Ex. DD)
The CSE convened on June 5, 2012. Participating was a DOE school , a DOE teacher who also served as District Representative and the student’s mother (“the parent”). (T. 153, Ex. C) The IEP described the student (then about years old) as, among other things, and , - with in and using and some to communicate, a , a “sometime” , interacting well with adult and peers but , and having and and and . (Ex. 1) The CSE classified the student with and recommended: a class ( program) in a DOE school (District ), (“ ”) periods per week: / (“ ”) x ( : ) per week; (“ ”) x ( : ) per week, Counseling x ( : ) per week, a full time and an (“ ”) as needed throughout the school day and . (Ex. C)
By letter dated June 15, 2012, a placement at was recommended. (Ex. E)
By letter dated August 10, 2012, the parent informed the CSE that she had concluded that the placement was not appropriate and provided reasons. She informed the CSE that she rejected the placement and that the student would attend for the 2012-2013 school year and that DOE funding would be sought. (Ex. F) No response was received.
From at least July 1, 2012, the DOE was not providing any related services for the student although they had previously been provided while the student was enrolled in . (T. 571)
By letter dated September 5, 2013, the parent filed the instant impartial hearing request. (Ex. A) The parent assertions with regard to the IEP included: incorrect classification, inadequate evaluative material, the improper removal of health services, improper composition of the CSE because there was no parent member, deficient description of the student’s needs and performance, inadequate goals and objectives, the absence of testing accommodations and specification of modified promotional criteria and a failure to complete an FBA or create a BIP. [2] The parent claimed that the IEP was substantively and procedurally defective. Further, the parent claimed that the recommended placement was not appropriate. The parent asserted that was appropriate and that no equitable factors barred or limited DOE funding for that placement. The parent sought reimbursement for payments made and prospective funding for the balance as well as related services, nursing services (.2) at school, the use of an , and transportation to school in an air-conditioned . (Ex. A) [3]
The DOE has not submitted a post hearing brief. However, it its opening statement it was claimed that there were no procedural and substantive defects in the IEP resulting in a denial of a FAPE and that the recommended placement was appropriate. (T. 34-35) No other claims were made.
Cases Presented
Lists of documents submitted are appended.
The DOE presented the testimony of the following witnesses: (“ ”) school and participant in the CSE review, and, (“ ”), teacher at the recommended school.
The parent presented the testimony of the following witnesses: (“ Director”), Director of Programs at the placement; (“the ”), who conducted an independent ; and, the student’s mother (“the parent”).
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
A) Facts
With regard to the testimony of the witnesses, I find the testimony of each credible in that I conclude that they each testified truthfully in accordance with their recollections and as to the opinions they held. The relevant testimony is discussed below.
The information stated in the “Background” section above is specifically included herein as factual findings.
Transcript and Exhibit references not specified below are set forth above.
B) Analysis
The legal standard applicable to a request for reimbursement for educational services is well established. Reimbursement is granted if: (1) the services offered by the Board of Education are inadequate or inappropriate (Prong 1); (2) the services selected by the parent are appropriate (Prong 2) ; and (3) equitable considerations support the parent's claim (Prong 3). Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993); School Comm. of Burlington v. Department of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (1985). In New York State the DOE bears the burden of proof with regard to Prong 1 and the parent bears the burden of proof with regard to Prong 2. Educ. Law 4404[1][c] Prospective payment for tuition may be ordered by an impartial hearing officer when a child would otherwise be denied a free appropriate education and the parent can show financial inability to pay the tuition and then seek reimbursement. Mr. & Mrs. A v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 769 F. Supp. 2d 403 (S.D. N.Y. 2011). See also, Connors v. Mills, 34 F. Supp 2nd 795 at
806, n.7 (N.D. N.Y. 1998)
Prong 1
An appropriate educational program begins with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) which accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs, establishes annual goals related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9). While school districts are required to comply with all Individuals with Disabilities Education Act procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F. 3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]) If a procedural violation has occurred, relief is warranted only if the violation affected the student's right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) (J.D. v. Pawlet Sch. Dist., 224 F.3d 60, 69 [2d Cir. 2000]). A denial of a FAPE occurs when procedural inadequacies either result in a loss of educational opportunity for the student, seriously infringe on the parents' opportunity to participate in the IEP formulation process (see Werner v. Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F. Supp. 2d 656, 659 [S.D.N.Y. 2005]; W.A. v. Pascarella, 153 F. Supp. 2d 144, 153 [D. Conn. 2001]), or compromise the development of an appropriate IEP in a way that deprives the student of educational benefits under that IEP (see Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. v. D.K., 2002 WL 31521158 [S.D.N.Y. 2002]). In evaluating the substantive program developed by the CSE, the Second Circuit has observed that “for an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression” (Weixel v. Bd. of Educ., 287 F.3d 138, 151 [2d Cir. 2002], quoting M.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 103 [2d Cir. 1998]). This progress, however, must be meaningful; i.e., more than mere trivial advancement (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130). The IDEA, however, does not require school districts to develop IEPs that maximize the potential of a student with a disability (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 197 n.21, 199; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132. The student's recommended program must also be provided in the Least Restrictive Environment (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.550[b]; 8 NYCRR 200.6[a][1]).
, the sole DOE witness with regard to the IEP and the CSE review, acknowledged that the student had been due for an “updated, mandated -year ”, that the parent was not asked to consent to one and that he was aware of no efforts by the CSE to conduct one. (T. 159. 334) He testified that there were no staff members present and he was aware of no oral communication with the student’s teacher or any prior to the meeting. (T. 153, 240, 314) In making its recommendation the CSE relied solely upon and a review of the in the file which showed that the last was in February 2007. (T. 159, 206-207, Ex. X) He did not know whether the teacher progress report considered by the CSE had been complete and testified that a report, if such was prepared, was not reviewed at the meeting. No current home or school observation was conducted for this review and neither CSE participant had observed or evaluated the student. (T. 197, 203, 208) There was no obtained. (T. 227)
A : was recommended because it was reported that the student and and a : had been previously provided. (T. 161) created a based upon record review, the IEP information and a teacher and possibly a . (T. 162,288, 312-316, 320,329-330, Ex. 2) However, he had no knowledge as to the nature or frequency of the and he referenced therein. (T. 323, 327) He acknowledged that since an had not been done, there was insufficient information to draft a that would be instructive in relation to the student’s but said that there was sufficient information to support the need for a , the sole purpose in creating the . (T. 335-336)
The and recommendations made by the CSE followed the recommendation in the provider’s . (T. 160-161, Exs. 4,5) The CSE did not receive a and therefore continued with the prior mandate. (T. 161)
further testified that a month program was recommended to prevent , , and - . (T. 166) Academic goals were created by the CSE teacher based upon classroom teacher’s and related services goals taken from or developed by the CSE. (T. 169-172,178, Ex. 3) has no specific knowledge as to why the recommendation was made and speculated it had been on a prior IEP but stated that there was no indication of any to 2011. (T. 179-180, 265-266) services were not provided, although they had been previously, because the DOE’s services department had not approved them and that determination was not questioned by the CSE which was merely the “messenger”. (T. 212-213, 217-218, 371)
I find that the DOE has failed to establish that the IEP was procedurally and substantively appropriate.
It is the DOE’s burden to establish that the recommended program was supported by material. See 8 NYCRR 200.4[b][4][5][6] “Any evaluation of a student with a disability must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the student, including information provided by the parent, that may assist in determining, among other things the content of the student's IEP (20 U.S.C. § 1414[b][2][A]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.304[b][1][ii]; see Letter to Clarke, 48 IDELR 77 [OSEP 2007]).” Appeal No. 11-025.
Pursuant to 8 NYCRR 200.4[b][4] an appropriate - must be conducted at least once every years unless the parent and district agree in writing that a - is unnecessary. acknowledged that requirement in this case and further acknowledged that it had not even been sought. In the instant matter, moreover, this was not simply a technical failure. The only relied upon by the CSE was conducted in 2007 when the student, at the time of the review , was years old. (Ex. X) Moreover, the 2007 did not indicate the student’s levels and with regard to that noted only that in a prior 2005 , when the student was years old (her “ - ” review), testing could not be completed. The 2007 stated that were not available due to . Accordingly, the 2012 CSE had no knowledge of the student’s , and therefore of achievement possibilities and program requirements, although testified that there were, in fact, tests available to determine the levels of . Further, results scores ranging from years to years at that time and the CSE had no knowledge from as to the student’s current levels. (Ex. X) I also note that there is no indication that either DOE participant had personal knowledge of this student or communicated orally with those who did, other than the parent. The CSE relied solely on and the record is inconclusive as to what was reviewed and the contents. Accordingly, it is not possible to determine whether the information and goals in the IEP was consistent with those reports. In the foregoing circumstances, the DOE has not met its burden to demonstrate that its IEP was supported by sufficient .
Further, I note as an independent basis for a conclusion that the IEP was procedurally defective that the CSE determined that the student’s with but acknowledged that an was not conducted and that the would not provide guidance in how to deal with such . However, when a student’s behavior impedes learning a must be developed with strategies to deal with problem behaviors. 8 NYCRR 200.22 (b) The Second Circuit has observed that “[t]he entire purpose of the FBA is to ensure that the IEP’s drafters have sufficient information about the student’s behaviors to craft a plan that will appropriately address those behaviors.” R.E. v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 694 F. 3d 167, 190 (2d Cir. 2012) Failure to develop an adequate FBA is a serious procedural violation and although the mere fact of absence of an FBA does not rise to the level of a denial of a FAPE if the IEP adequately identifies the problem behaviors and appropriately specifies strategies for addressing them, I find no basis for concluding that that alternative has been demonstrated in this matter. Id. See also A.C. ex rel M.C. v Bd. of Education of the Chappaqua Sch. Dist., 553 F.3d 165, 172(2nd Cir. 2009).
In view of the foregoing findings, I do not address the parent’s other claims except to note the credible testimony of with regard to the student’s and need for by and staff. (T. 417-418)
Prong 2
When a public school system has failed to provide FAPE, the program and services chosen by the parent are “proper under the Act” if the education provided is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” Carter, 510 U.S. at 14. The parents bear the burden of proof with regard to the services obtained by the parents for the student. However, parents are not barred from reimbursement if their program does not meet the IDEA definition of a FAPE. See 20 U.S.C. §1401(9), Frank
G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park., 459 F. 3d 356 (2nd Cir. 2006). It is not required that the provider of the services be State-approved to provide instruction to children with disabilities. Carter, 510 U.S. at 10. The student need not be the least restrictive environment. Frank G, 459 F. 3d at 364.. “Ultimately the issue turns on whether a placement…is ‘reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.’ [internal citations omitted] …”, Frank G, 459 F. 3d at 130. No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining that. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207 (1982). Parents need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction. Id. at 364-365. See also Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F 3d. 105, 115 (2d Cir. 2007).
The evidence shows that: serves children - years old with a variety of and currently has students enrolled in classes with from - students in each class. (T. 394-395) It provides a highly individualized program with a focus on . (T. 392) Service delivery is diversified and related service providers and teachers collaborate routinely and frequently. (T. 392, 614-615) Staff work collaboratively with agency sent related service providers who are assigned by staff to students and whose schedules with those students is determined by , the room includes a area and a area and a and are used for educational purposes. (T. 395-398, 614-615) The is familiar with the student’s needs, her and is integral to the classroom. (T.417) The student uses a in school provided by the parent and well as the “ ” program and the works with staff and student with regard to how to best use them. (T. (T. 393) Professional development in various relevant areas is provided by the school. (T. 613-614)
uses a curriculum ( (“ ”) which is in compliance with New York State standards for children with needs and provides integrated instruction with regard to skills. (T. 392-393, 412-413) , and classes are provided to the student. (T. 414) opportunities with typically developing peers are provided during lunch, in special events and through a buddy mentoring system and the student participates in each. (T. 399-401,
414) The student is routinely with regard to and , an individualized IEP was developed for the student and are issued. (T. 405-406, 611-612)
The student’s class is ( boys and girls) who are grouped according to age, academic and behavioral needs and group and : instruction is provided. (T. 394, 401-403), the student also has a : and there is a in the classroom. (T. 402) The student’s program is broken up into segments but the student is permitted breaks when needed. (T. 406-407) She is currently working on , and , and - , the , and : , , and . (T. 412)
The student has made progress during the 2012-2013 school year in the program provided. (T. 419) She puts her , has , , improved skills and improved to . (T. 419-420, 617) Her ability to , with use of an , has . (T. 622-623) Her have improved and the need for . (T. 420) The student is now able to in the classroom, is able to remain with the group and . (T. 618-621) The Director persuasively characterized this as “huge progress.” (T. 620)
I find that the program provided is consistent with the student’s needs as described by the persuasive testimony of the , the director and the parent. I am mindful that various related services are available at only through funding by the DOE. I find that not determinative here where the related services provided are comprehensively integrated into the program and the student has a very unique combination of substantial and challenging needs which as a whole are satisfactorily addressed. Further, I note that the DOE has made no claims that the unilaterally selected program is not appropriate.
The parent has established that the parent’s program was specially designed to meet the student’s needs and reasonably calculated to enable her to make meaningful educational gains. Therefore the parent has met her burden with regard to Prong 2.
Prong 3
There has been no claim that the parent failed to cooperate in the development of the IEP or interfered in the placement process and the evidence demonstrates otherwise. The parent attended the review, timely made her concerns known to the CSE, made the student available for testing and shared reports. (T. 534-543) She visited the proposed placement, made her concerns known to the CSE and was willing to consider DOE programs. (T. 552-570, 574, Ex. F) The DOE did not respond. (T. 569) It is wellestablished that a parent’s preference for a school, even if such is the case, is not dispositive of a claim for DOE payment. Appeal No. 05-087. Upon consideration of the foregoing, I find no basis for denying or limiting DOE funding on equitable grounds.
With regard to the parent’s prospective payment claims, I find credible the parent’s testimony that she cannot pay tuition and seek reimbursement. (T. 580-582) The evidence shows that the parent , the father is , after some , and as a of a and that there is no other sources of funds than the above. (T. 581-582)[4] Further the parent’s testimony that she considers the tuition a debt which must be paid was credible and not contested by the DOE. (T. 580) I also note that even were that not the case, prospective payment is not necessarily precluded. See Mr. & Mrs. A v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 769 F. Supp. 2d 403 (S.D. N.Y. 2011).
ORDER
1) The DOE shall fund the student’ placement at ( month program) for the 2012-2013 school year in the amount of $36,000. (Ex. L) The DOE shall immediately reimburse the parent for payments made for that tuition upon the submission of proof of payment. The DOE shall immediately directly pay the balance of the tuition, after deduction of the reimbursement to the parent, to .
2) The DOE shall reimburse the parent for payments for services, at the authorized rate, for such services provided during the 2012-2013 school year prior to the effective date of the for that service issued pursuant to the interim order in this matter. The parent may elect that the DOE directly pay the for the services for which payment has not yet been made by the parent.
3) During the 2012-2013 school year, the student was entitled to receive the following services at the authorized rate:
- x ( : ) per week
- sessions (. ) ( : ) per week
- x ( : ) per week
/ - x ( : )
- (with the student) (. ) ( : )
With regard to the parent’s claim in her hearing request for entitlement to an enhanced rate, I find no support in the record for a conclusion that appropriate services are not otherwise unavailable for this student.
4) The DOE shall issue for services as specified in Paragraph 3 above which were: a) not provided prior to the effective date of the issued pursuant to the interim order; b) not otherwise provided herein by Paragraph 2 above. The may be utilized at the option of the parent through August 31, 2014.
5) The student is entitled to receive transportation to and from and to and from her related services in an air-conditioned with . Each trip shall not exceed one hour in duration.
6) The CSE shall reconvene within two weeks, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, to review the January 2013 , consider the student’s and the recommendations in the , including the related services recommendations, and develop a program for the 2013-2014 school year.
7) With regard to an , an was asserted to have been completed during the 2012-2013 school year but was not entered into evidence. (T. 393, 501) If not yet done, the DOE shall immediately implement its recommendations. Dated: June 28, 2013
___________________________________
JUDITH SCHNEIDER, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Public School District has a right to appeal the decision to a State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
If the parent plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petition for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed so that a certified copy of the hearing record may be prepared for submission by the school district. If a school district plans to appeal the decision, the district shall file a certified copy of the hearing record together with its petition.
An appealing parties' petition for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period. (8 NYCRR § 279.2(b))
The rules of procedure for proceedings before a SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov/part279home.html.
EXHIBITS
PARENTS
A , 9/5/12, 10 pgs.
B , 9/19/12, 3 pgs.
C , 6/5/12, 13 pgs.
D , 6/23/11, 21 pgs.
E , 6/15/12, 1 pg.
F , 8/10/12, 3 pgs.
G , 10/3/12, 4 pgs.
H 9/12/12, 3 pgs.
J , 5/4/11, 1 pg.
K , 9/27/12,[5] pgs.
L , , 9/19/12, 1 pg.
M5 , Ms. , 4/16/2012, 2 pgs.
N , , Ms. , 6/8/2011, 1 pg.
O OMITTED
P , . , 6/7/2012, 1 pg.
Q Letter from . , 7/12/2012, 1 pg.
R , 6/14/2012, 2 pgs.
S , , 1/8/2010, 5 gs.
T , 2012-2013, 1 pg.
U , 1/8/2013, 1/10/2013, 2 pgs.
V , 6/14/2012, 1 pg.
W , , 2012-2013, 3 pgs.
X , 2/13/2007, 3 pgs.
Y , 11/2005, 8 pgs.
Z , , 2012-2013, 1 pg.
AA District , 2012-2013, 1 pg.
BB OMITTED
CC , 2012-2013, 7 pgs.
DD , January 2013, 13 pages
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
1 WITHDRAWN
2 , 6/5/12, 2 pgs.
3 , 4/16/12, 1 pg.
4 , 4/16/12, 2 pgs.
5 , undated, 4 pgs.
6 , 6/5/12, 2 pgs.
IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER
I
II III (February 6, 2013),
IV V
Footnotes
[1] One and/or both parties moved to extend the compliance date on various occasions in light of anticipated testimony, the scheduling of witnesses, and the submission of evidence and closing memoranda. In considering the requests I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the need of the parties for additional time to prepare and present their positions in accordance with the requirements of due process was greater than any delay in the resolution of this matter. Accordingly, the requests for extensions of the compliance dates were granted and my written decisions granted the extensions were granted. (T. 18-19, 44, 139-140, 482-483,485, 600, 608-609, 638, 640- 641, Ex . II )
[2] The parent’s reference in the complaint to the student’s classification pursuant to the IEP was misstated due to clerical error and corrected at the hearing. (T. 45-46)
[3] The parent initially sought DOE funding for independent evaluations but that request was withdrawn. (T. 495) See generally T. 494-513 with regard to the parents claims for relief. See also Ex. IV.
[4] The parent improperly submitted as an “addendum” to her Post-hearing Brief, and apparently without the consent of the DOE, W-2 forms. (Ex. IV) That material is not evidence in this matter and I do not consider it. See also T. 494.
[5] Request for Services Response to Subpoena, 6/14/12, 1 page was marked for identification as Exhibit M but not thereafter entered into evidence. (T. 379)