New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: April 13, 2012

June 14, 2012

July 9, 2012

August 13, 2012

September 17, 2012

October 23, 2012

November 15, 2012

Actual Record Close Date: January 2, 2012

Hearing Officer: Linda S. Agoston, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 13, 2012

Attorney (via telephone) — Student

District Representative (via telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JUNE 14, 2012

Attorney — Student

Grandparent — Student

Mother, — Parents

Attorney — DOE

Occupational therapist (via telephone) — DOE

Physical Therapist (via telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JULY 9, 2012

Attorney — Student

Father — Student

Mother — Student

Physical Therapist — Student

Attorney — DOE

Classroom Teacher (via telephone) — DOE

Law Clerk — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED AUGUST 13, 2012

Attorney — Student

Father — Student

Mother — Student

Physical Therapist — Student

Attorney — DOE

IEP Coordinator — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED SEPTEMBER 17, 2012

Attorney — Student

Father — Student

Mother — Student

Physical Therapist — Student

Attorney, — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED OCTOBER 23, 2012

Attorney — Student

Father, — Parents

Mother, — Parents

Physical Therapist, — Parents

OT Supervisor, — Parents

Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED NOVEMBER 15, 2012

Attorney — Student

Attorney — DOE

On March 8, 2012, I was designated by the New York City Department of — DOE

Education (“DOE”) as impartial hearing officer, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(2) and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York in the matter of . and the parents through their attorney initiated this hearing on March 8, 2012. On March 22, 2012, I scheduled a pendency hearing for April 13, 2012. On April 13, 2012, pursuant to the agreement with both parties, I issued an order that the DOE to provide . with the mandated services pursuant to the “Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) dated March 24, 2011 (Exh. 2) and revised on May 17, 2011 (Exh.B) and provide the parents of with Related Service Authorizations (“RSAs”) for individual ”) twice per week for 60 minutes per session by an individual trained in prosthetics and individual ”) once a week for 60 minutes by an individual trained in prosthetics from March 8, 2012, the date of the request until the conclusion of the hearing. On April 16, 2012, the hearing was scheduled to continue on May 16, 2012. Both attorneys requested adjournments and with consent of all parties, I granted the request to adjourn the hearing on scheduled hearing dates of May 16, 2012 and June 3, 2012. Hearings were held on June 14, 2012 and July 9, 2012. On July 9, 2012, I issued an interim order pursuant to the agreement with both parties for the DOE to provide the parents with RSAs for 9 hours of individual as it was undisputed that . missed 9 hours of during the 2011-2012 year. The hearing continued on August 13, 2012, September 17, 2012, October 23, 2012 and November 15, 2012.

The parties moved to extend the compliance dates during the course of the hearing. 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 the matter. Accordingly the requests for extensions of the compliance dates were granted. The last compliance dates were extended as a result of the requests for post-hearing submissions. The parents’ representative submitted her post hearing closing statement on December 28, 2012 by email which was forwarded to me on December 28, 2012. The DOE representative also emailed the post hearing statement on December 28, 2012; however, it was not forwarded to me until January 2, 2013. The current record close date is January 2, 2013 and the compliance date for issuing a decision is January 16, 2013. Appended to the record are lists of persons in attendance and of documents submitted into evidence.

The parents seek the issuance of RSAs for missed sessions or by an individual trained in prosthetics (Exh. A at 3). The parents seek a finding that the DOE failed to offer . a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) and seeks an order directing the DOE to create an IEP for . and classifying her as a student with an orthopedic impairment with related services of individual twice per week for 60 minutes per session by an provider trained in prosthetics and individual once a week for 60 minutes by a provider trained in prosthetics (IHO Exh. IX at 28). The parents further seek payment for , the private provider and , the private provider for services rendered during the pendency of this hearing (Id.). The parents further seek an order directing the DOE to provide compensatory services for sessions missed at the start of the school year as agreed between the parent and Ms. for a total of 5 sessions (Id.). The parents further seek make-up sessions for all cancelled sessions as noted in the attendance log, (Exh. G), for a total of 11 sessions of OT and 6 sessions of (IHO Exh. IX at 29).

BACKGROUND

with a (Exh. E at 1). She was born “ ; she ” (Exh D at 1). The Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) classified and she has remained in this classification throughout her academic career until February 29, 2012, when she was declassified. (Exh. 6).

On March 24, 2011, CSE recommended related services of individual twice per week for 60 minutes per session in a separate location and individual once a week for 60 minutes in a separate location (Exh. 2 at 6). The first progress report of the goals listed the on the March 24, 2011 IEP indicated that . made no progress towards the annual goal to improve her use of the prosthesis for greater independence in school and at home and that she was independent without the (Exh. C at 1). The progress report indicated she met the following annual goals: (1) to improve her written communications skills for greater independence at school and at home; (2) to ; and (3) to develop extremity endurance and prosthetic competence (Exh. C at 2-5). The progress report indicated that she did not meet the annual goal to independently (Exh. C at 6).

On May 16, 2011, IEP was revised to exclude special education transportation and to include “information that could to the student through improper use of her ” (Exh. I). The revision on May 16, 20211 mandated that required ( and required her “therapy be delivered by a ” (Id.). The May 17, 2011 IEP included the current progress towards goals, but otherwise matched the March 24, 2011 IEP (Exh. B).

On September 12, 2011, Dr. wrote to the Supervising Physical Therapist, Ms. and noted that , (Exh. D at 1). He further noted that “ difference in arm length by ”(Id.). He recommended she continue to work with her therapist, , who had been trained in the use of (Exh. D at 2). He indicated that she did not and as a result her . Accordingly, he ’s service providers be trained in the use of the to their approach (Id.).

On October 4, 2011, the parent signed the consent to CSE for testing and assessment for . (Exh. H). On December 14, 2011, Annual Report Plan was developed by , school district , indicated that that . is which is worn on the ” (Exh. 4 at 1). Ms. independent in and through (Exh. 4 at 2). Ms. found “dons and doffs her ) independently at the same pace as her classmates”(Id.). She utilized the School Function Assessment (“SFA”) and reported that for transitions, transportation, was able to independently access her entire school environment as her peers (Id.). Ms. recommended graduation from school based PT (Exh. 4 at 3).

On January 25, 2011, the was conducted by , school district OT provider. Her conclusions were based on 3 tests, the WOLD Sentence Copying Test (“WOLD”), the and the Berry-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual Motor (“VMI”) as well as her clinical observation and teacher report, student and parent interview. She reviewed and noted that was receiving school based services for 3 years and a previous IEP included a goal to wear he r prosthesis for 6 hours per week (Exh. 5 at 2). She observed and noted that She determined hat had a skill level consistent classmates in all areas of , it did not impede function (Exh. 5 at 4). She reported that and participation in activities of ”) in the school environment was “consistent with her peers without the use of her prosthesis (Exh. 5 at 5). She found scored on the SFA “within the expected range for her grade level in most areas of school function” (Id.). She noted . scored on the same level as her peers in the areas management of classroom tools and materials and visual motor (Exh. 5 at 6). On the WOLD, and on the VMI, skill level was consistent with her classmates (Exh. 5 at 7). Ms. further noted that . did not wear throughout the day and preferred not to use her with time (Exh.5 at 9). Ms. concluded that was not recommended as her in the school environment and her difficulties were “best addressed by other methods (e.g

On January 18, 2012, and special education teacher, assessed ’s academic achievement, functional performance and learning characteristics and found her levels of development in ELA and math were age and grade appropriate, (Exh. 8 at 1) her social development was assessed and no concerns were noted (Exh. 8 at 2). Her physical strength was assessed and her difficulty opening a container was noted; however, she was able to (Exh. 8 at 3). The reporters noted that had met her goal of opening and closing fasteners in her pants 50 percent of the time and met the goal of opening containers at lunch without asking for help in 3/5 trials was met (Exh. 8 at 4).

A Classroom Observation was conducted by Ms. special education teacher, on December 14, 2011, and Ms. noted . participated in music class and could use scissors, flip through pages and grip writing utensils in her right hand (Exh. 10). Ms. concluded that . functioned “academically, on or above grade level across all school subjects” (Id.).

On February 7, 2012, when was evaluation was conducted by , (Exh. E). Her conclusions were based on 3 tests, the ”), the ”) version Collection Instrument (“PODCI/POSNA”), as well as her clinical observations and parent interview (Exh. E). Ms. reviewed her history and noted ”) to date through the NYC DOE (Id.). Ms. noted in her evaluation concerns in the following areas: movement ( (Exh. E 3, 4). On the UBET, Ms. noted that and the average score of was (Exh E at 4). On the POSNA/PODCI, Ms. found rated below average compared to the scores of similar children without an scale, sports/physical functional scale, happiness scale and global functioning scale (Id.). The ABA is a test that measures the effectiveness with which a child who had a unilateral disability makes use of his/her affected hand (assisting hand) during bimanual activities (Id.) The ABA is a test intended for children with the ABA, rated 34 percent below the mean (Exh. E at 5). Ms recommended continue both and based on her assessment as she noted areas of concern in and new skills like (Exh. E at 6)

There was several pre-meeting (Exh J) from November 2011 to February 2012. The IEP that resulted from these pre-meetings on February 29, 2012, recommended declassification from support services as was determined to be no longer eligible for special education services (Exh 6). The parents were not happy with the results of February 29, 2012 meeting. In her testimony, which will be discussed later, the mother testified that the . “didn’t meet her goals, she still ” (trans. 1020).

THE DISTRICT’S CASE

The District’s case was presented in the testimony of Ms. Ms. , Ms. , and Ms . Ms. , licensed and certified Senior provider at employed by the DOE for 3 years, testified she had a doctorate in (trans. 22). She stated that she believed that . did not require school-based because her did not interfere with .’s ability to participate in her academic environment (trans. 25). She noted that for the 2011-2012 school year, H.E. was placed in a general education class (trans. 26). She recalled that the mother told her not to provide services in September 2011 (trans. 29; 33). She further recalled that subsequently she was told by the principal, Ms. to commence on or about the middle of October 2011 (trans. 30). She recollected that she provided . once a week for 60 minutes and observed in various settings including transitioning, in the lunch room, outside on a nature walk and concluded that was able to access all aspects of her education fully. (trans. 37) Ms. stated that she conducted assessments to update the CSE team and family regarding progress. She listed the standing, walking and climbing tests of the SFA and ascertained that . rated 6, which was full participation in 6 settings: classroom, gym, transportation, transitioning within the school setting, toiling, and meal time (trans. 41). As a result of her assessment, Ms. recommended graduation from school-based PT because she felt that was only necessary for children who had trouble accessing the academics (trans. 44, 76).

Ms. stated that she worked on the IEP goals during her sessions; however, she noted that she felt the IEP goals were either already achieved or were not school-based or were not related to (trans. 45). She further stated she was a participant of the February 29, 2012 IEP meeting and she stressed every member of the team was given an opportunity to participate and indeed participated (trans. 50). She recollected that she reviewed Ms. s evaluation (Exh. E) and opined that the UBET¸ the ABA, the PODCI were not school-based assessments (trans. 54) because those assessments were not used in the educational mode, but were used in the medical mode especially as the ABA was only normed for children with cerebral palsy (trans. 57). She recalled that Ms. participated in the February 29, 2012 meeting and informed the team that ’ s missing limb caused a rotation; however, she did not recalled that . rotated her body (trans. 60) .She stressed that on February 29, 2012, CSE team did not pre-determine the result (trans. 63).

Ms. recalled that the CSE team aside from the parents and Ms. agreed that services were no longer necessary (trans. 66). She further recalled that many activities noted in Ms. s evaluation were home setting activities not school activities (trans. 70). Ms. recollected that disliked and could only tolerate it for 20 minutes (trans. 76). Ms. maintained that the parents received a copy of her report because per protocol the psychologist sends all evaluations to the parent a week before the review (trans. 79).

On cross, Ms. acknowledged that she had not experience working with children with (trans. 82). She stated that she was aware of the May 17, 2011 IEP; however, since it was not finalized the May 17, 2011 IEP was not a legal document (trans. 83). She recalled that the assistant principal told her on the first day of school that the parent wanted . to receive her services at home through RSAs (trans. 84). She recalled that she spoke to the parent during the third week September 2011 and recalled that the parent told her not to provide to her daughter because she was worried about her lack of training in prosthetic devices (trans. 85, 90). She stated that she provided . on October 18, 2011. She denied that ’s as was found by Dr. (Exh. D); however, she did not recall if she used to (trans. 92).

On cross, Ms. stated that she did not assess the ’s ability to perform bilateral activities such as open a jar, catch a small ball (trans. 95). She further stated that she did not work on the goal to develop or to develop self-help skills because she did not consider those goals appropriate (trans. 105;135). She maintained that there were no tests to determine what dominance . has (trans. 106) and she did not observe a as noted by Dr. (trans. 107). She further maintained that she observed functional tasks to ascertain whether could follow objects from the left side of her vision and found that did access the left side of her field of (trans. 126).

Ms. licensed and certified Senior employed by the DOE for 5 years, testified she had a master’s degree in OT (trans. 151). Ms. . in the classroom, playground, lunch room and therapy room and concluded that . was sweet, articulate, self-aware child, who was respected by her peers and functioned well in the classroom. (trans. 154;157). She stated that she commenced giving on or about October 18, 2011, after she received the prescription and that she provided twice a week for 60 minutes per session (trans. 155). She stated that she worked with . towards the goal of ; however, she was not able to (trans. 158;159) She noted that . had met her writing goal (trans. 162) and her ocular motion goal (trans. 164). She reviewed the teacher report and noted that required assistance with clothing to manipulate snaps and small buttons as did many of her peers (trans. 174; 183). Ms. reviewed her report and recalled that she recommended discontinuing functioned at the level of her peers (trans. 175). Ms. recalled that Ms. participated in the February 29, 2012 IEP meeting and voiced her concerns regarding her trunk rotation; however, she did not observe a spinal rotation as observed by Ms. (trans. 182). Ms. stated she was not aware what side . was dominant in and assumed that she was right handed; but did not consider dominance relevant (trans. 185).

On cross, Ms. stated that the parent never informed her that she did not want her (Ms. ) not to provide services (trans. 192;262). She recalled that she wrote her progress report in December 2011 (trans. 193) She further recalled that . did not meet the goals of wearing her prosthesis for 60 minutes or the goal of not when carrying an object with her , or the goal to hold an object with her or the goal to fasten her pants independently (trans. 196-197; 199). She recollected that was able to tie her shoe after approximately 5 to 7 minutes (trans. 198). She maintained that role of the provider was not to work on self-care tasks such as manipulating snaps, small buttons, shoe tying as the parent should work on those skills (trans. 203).

On cross, Ms. stressed that the was not suited to work on ’s participation in school with the use of the (trans. 205). She recalled that she never lifted .’s shirt to (trans 207). She did not recall if there was a gym at if there was a gym teacher (trans. 213). She recalled she made several revisions of her report with Ms. prior to the February 29, 2012 IEP meeting (trans. 214). She further recalled that she was unfamiliar with the UBET or the ABA (trans. 217). She acknowledged that had difficulty opening a cap on a bottle (trans. 219). She stated that she conducted the SFA on . and noted that . (trans. 227). She further stated that or (Id.).

Ms , licensed and certified general education teacher at employed by the DOE for 15 years, testified she had 2 master’s degrees in general education (trans. 273). She stated that . was in her general education class for the 2011-2012 and that her class functioned in academic ability from novice to expert and she described functioned nearing expert in reading and math (trans. 278), and her writing was legible (trans. 281). She recalled that . did not wear her prosthesis (trans. 284). She further recalled that she assessed . by using the Developmental Reading Assessment and found that . was on grade level in reading comprehension and math (trans.289). She reviewed her report (Exh. 8) and recalled that . required assistance to open a milk container or start a zipper (trans. 293-294;304).

On cross, Ms. acknowledged that she never observed buttoning her pants, or tucking her shirt or opening her water bottle or playing any type of game such as baseball, basketball or soccer (trans. 307). She stated that she was aware in the beginning of the school year other students wanted to touch .’s arm (trans. 300). She stated that she was unaware that children in the class were touching ’s and she had a discussion with her class to discourage touching unless . extended an invitation to touch (trans. 320).

Ms. , licensed and certified special education teacher at testified she held a dual certification for general education and special education with multiple disabilities for grades 1 to 9 (trans. 491). She stated that any IEP not in the NYC DOE online system, Special Education Information System (“SESIS”) was considered a draft (trans. 492). She stated that May 17, 2011 IEP (Exh. B) was considered a draft as it was different from the final version of the IEP in SESIS(trans. 495).

Ms. stated that the amendment to the IEP on May 16, 2011 was not finalized in SESIS so the May 17, 2011 IEP was not considered final with the revision (trans. 536). She further stated that RSAs would only be provided to the parents when the services could not be provided in the school (trans. 501). She recalled a formal meeting in January 2011 with the related service providers, the supervisors of the related service providers, the psychologist, the principal to discuss the results of the and evaluations for . (trans. 505). She recalled the consensus of the CSE personnel was that . was not impeded in her academics or her functioning level and so declassification was recommended (trans. 507). She recalled that she observed . on December 14, 2011 (Exh. 10) and noted that was able to fully participate within the school environment without obstruction (trans. 514). She did not recall . rotating her trunk (trans. 517). She recalled that Ms. participated in the February 29, 2012 meeting and informed the team that she . scored below other children in her age group with (trans. 521). She opined that the assessments Ms. used were used by doctors at the and was not peer reviewed (trans. 523). She stressed that on February 29, 2012, CSE team did not change its mind to declassify based on Ms. ’s statements or the findings in Ms. ’s report (trans. 529).

On cross, Ms. acknowledged that she only obtained her dual certification in May 2012 (trans. 538). She could not state why the amended IEP (requiring the use of adaptive equipment and that the providers be trained in special education transportation) was not finalized (trans. 546;551). She acknowledged that on May 16, 2011, the parent signed a waiver (Exhs. I, O). The waiver both waived the right to an IEP meeting and effectuated the changes of the March 24, 2011 IEP and a new IEP was created on May 17, 2011(trans. 551). She recalled that she sent an email (Exh. L) to the parent offered the parent RSAs during the summer for 9 hours of and 5 hours or for missed sessions (trans. 555). She further recalled that the related service providers told that . met her goals (trans. 563-566). She maintained that the goals in the IEP were not appropriate in light of the 2010 curriculum guidelines in that the goals were more geared to the home environment (trans. 568; 590).

THE PARENTS’ CASE

The parents’ case as presented in the testimony of .’s mother, Ms. , Ms. and . Ms. licensed and certified Senior provider at , testified she had a master’s degree in PT (trans. 327). She stated that started working with . in and continued to work with . until the end of the 2010-2011 school year (trans. 329; 355). She described the body operated upper extremity was a body operated cable that opened and closed the when . extended or shortened her shoulder (trans. 332). She stated that using the prosthesis forced . to engage in the left side of her environment (trans. 333). She further stated that she taught to write using the as she believed that was (trans. 337). She explained that . could be left handed despite not possessing a left hand as she was left eye dominant and she listened with her left ear (trans. 338).

Ms. explained the disadvantages to being left hand dominant and not having a left hand were apparent in her handwriting in her letter reversals and spacing (trans. 342). She further explained that in DLS and homework . had a tendency to move to her right side and neglected her left side. She noted that by neglecting her left visual field evidenced problems in scanning and visually tracking items horizontally, vertically, diagonally, clockwise, counterclockwise and problems in convergence (trans. 353). She further explained that if a person was a natural left handed person, but was forced to the use right hand, the letter formation was affected (trans. 468). She submitted a handwriting sample (Exh. N) and noted that . could develop brain strategies to control her and attend to her left environment (trans. 482).

Ms. related that she provided on April 18, 2012 and observed a regression in her hyperextension and her ability to stabilize her body and balance (trans. 256; 427). She further related that . had regressed from the June 2011 to April 18, 2012 in symmetry of her muscle development and the rotation in her trunk (trans. 359). She reviewed the May 17, 2011 IEP goals and observed the . regressed in her ability to develop ocular motor skills (trans. 363). She recalled that . regressed in her from June 2011, (trans. 365) and she relating to dressing (trans. 418). She opined that since lost abilities, strength, function and posture, it was important to work on functional vision, prosthetic training, alignment and posture (trans. 413).

On cross, Ms. stated she worked with children through age 5 (trans. 433). She explained that she provided services for . and another child without a hand (trans. 436). She stated that she wrote the goals for .’s IEP (trans. 438). She acknowledged that she did not observe in the school setting (trans. 441). She maintained that skipping over a word was attributed to her neglect of (trans. 442). She stated that could tolerate the for 30 minutes and she learned the . (trans. 444). She maintained that while it was not typical for a provider to work on handwriting, the areas or overlap (trans. 441). She maintained that the uneven spacing in .’s handwriting was the result of her disability and not typical handwriting for someone her age (trans. 456).

Ms. testified that she was licensed to practice in NYS and had an undergraduate degree in and had an advanced master’s degree in and was certified in specialist in children under 10 and was certified in . (trans. 641). She explained that was the network of fibers that connected (Id.). She stated that she was paid though RSAs by providing both PT and OT to NYC DOE children (trans. 643). She reviewed the evaluation conducted by Ms. (Exh. 4) and noted that Ms. used the SFA which did not sufficiently assess a child with an upper limb deficiency (trans. 653). She opined that it was dangerous for a child with an to lift a heavy book above her head as indicated in the review because . was missing not only her hand, but 3 inches of her forearm so she would twist her body to lift (trans. 655; 762;773).

Ms. disagreed with Ms. ’s review and maintained that .’s gross motor skills were limited by her (trans. 659). She stated that she would not have solely used the muscle manual test to assess muscle strength because the muscle manual test did not measure (trans. 702). She stated that she observed because did not utilize her helper hand and observed a significant decrease in muscle in the left side (trans. 738). She further stated that atrophied muscles could be reversed through exercise (trans. 926).

Ms. stated that she would not have used the SFA as the SFA did not assess .’s disability as the SFA assessed walking, jumping and climbing. She further stated the SFA did not assess bimanual activities (trans. 706). She explained that the UBET tested the child’s (trans. 707). She opined that the UBET was the gold standard for validity and reliability as the content validity is .91 and the content validity of the SFA is .85 (trans. 710). She noted that the UBET was a functional evaluation of the completion of tasks in children with unilateral below the elbow deficiency and was peer-reviewed (trans. 716). She explained that the results of the UBET indicated that . was not able to tie her shoes to the same speed as her own peers that also do not have limbs (trans. 718). She noted that on the UBET that consistently scored more than a standard deviation below the mean (trans. 721). She reported similar findings in the Upper Extremity Physical Function Scale because the mean was 67 and . scored 28; the mean for Sports and Physical Functioning was 60 and . scored 18 and on the Happiness Scale the mean was 50 and . scored 22 (trans. 725). She stressed that . scored significantly lower than the average child with a similar disability (trans. 726).

Ms. reviewed the evaluation (Exh. 5) by Ms. and stated the WOLD measured the speed of writing and a comprehensive handwriting assessment would measure legibility, the formation of letters, the spacing of letters and when she assessed . (Exh D), she found . had letter reversals and misspelling (trans. 664). She explained that must learn to write with the use of her residual limb, not only as a “helper” hand (trans. 668). She asserted that the VMI assessment in the report did not investigate why was a standard deviation below the mean and did not assess and did not assess .’s (trans 682). She also disagreed that the report that recommended leggings as an adaptation to recognize the fact that . could not jeans. She asserted that . would not always (trans. 688).

Ms. stated that she observed that . to determine if she was left-handed. She noted that people automatically go to their dominant side in a high adrenaline stage. She explained that she used another test and placed a hole in a paper and asked . to look through the hole and . used her dominant left eye to look through the hole. Ms. stated that to check genetic history was another way to determine dominance. She noted that she used the 3 methods and determined that . was left-handed despite the fact that she did not have a left hand (Trans. 673). She explained that .’s writing was awkward and difficult. She stated that she video-taped (Exh. W) and explained that ’s approach to handwriting with her right hand was typical of left-handed writing by the fact that started from the bottom rather than the top and the tail of the “Q” was in the wrong place (trans. 676). She noted that . was redoing the letters of the alphabet and making mistakes. She opined that . evidenced a delay for a student in second grade as the alphabet should be rote by second grade (trans. 677). She assessed ’s writing and found her writing to be on a first grade level (trans. 670). She noted that she observed motor planning hesitation in writing with her non-dominant hand; she was confident that or would allow handwriting to become smooth and easy (trans. 674). She further noted that she observed motor planning hesitation during a soccer game as . lifted her and left foot and was confused as to which foot to kick despite the fact that she had played soccer for several years (trans. 699).

Ms. recalled that she participated in the February 29, 2012 and reported her findings to the CSE team (trans. 746). She explained to the team that . was left dominant described her report (Exh. E) and recalled that no person remarked on her findings (trans. 746). She stated she was shocked by the conclusion to discontinue services and opined that the decision was made ahead of the meeting (trans. 747). She recalled that neither the provider nor the provider spoke (trans. 751). She recollected that she explained all the functional tasks that H.E. was unable to perform and was told that . could wear (trans. 753-754).

On cross, Ms. stated that the or the provider determined the schedule to wear the prostheses (trans. 757). She stated that . had obtained an new prosthesis and she used the schedule from to wear the prosthesis of 30 minutes and perform a functional activity and found that . could not take the new however, with a could perform activities (trans. 782). She noted the will help . in her (trans. 787). She further stated that she did not conduct x-rays (trans. 893).

The parent testified that received , through RSAs (trans. 933-940). She recalled that the IEP created for the 2011-2012 school year did not contain the information that providers must be trained in to avoid . She further recalled that she contacted the special education coordinator at .’s first grade elementary school, the (trans. 943-944). She recollected that she signed the amendment to the IEP (Exh. O). She maintained that every IEP since . turned 5 contained the information providers must be trained in prosthetic devices to avoid biomechanical injury and that was qualified as a provider trained in prosthetic devices.

The parent stated that she was given a copy of the amendment and was not aware that the amendment was not in SESIS. She further stated that she provided a prescription for the services each year (trans. 946-948). She maintained when started second grade at the School for the 2011-2012 school year, she never told any staff at the School that she did not want . (trans. 954) and contacted the special educational coordinator at the to fax the prescription to the School. She explained that in September 2011 ’s pediatrician confirmed that .’s musculature on her left side was off center and wrote a letter (Exh. D) to alert the Supervisor of PT, Ms. and the principal of the to recommend that Ms. continue to provide trans. 955-957).

The parent stressed that she never told any staff member at the that she was not willing to allow a provider to see (trans. 962). She recalled that she met with the provider, Ms. on September 21, 2012 and requested Ms. provide to daughter despite the fact that she was concurrently seeking RSAs because to date no had been provided to . (trans. 966). She recollected that Ms. told her that her insurance company should pay for these services as her issues were medical (trans. 969). She recalled that services started on October 18, 2011 and services started on October 19, 2011 (trans. 971).

The parent noted a series of emails on or about November 15, 2011 between herself and the special education coordinator, (Exh. K.L) for make-up sessions as and started late (trans. 974). She further recalled that she requested progress reports in early December 2011 and received the progress reports (Exh. C;trans. 981). She stated that she was not told that goals were not being worked on (trans. 983). She further stated that she requested a copy of the district’s evaluations which she received on February 3, 2012 (trans. 985). She recalled that she was upset that the evaluations recommended discontinuation of services after starting services in October 2011 and conducting evaluations in November 2011 (trans. 988). She further recalled that she had a conversation with in June 2011, when . was in .

The parent explained that her positions during the 2010-2011 year in the were special educator and special education coordinator; however, Ms. was not aware that she was the speaking to the parent of . on June 2011 and Ms. told her did not need services (trans. 994). She explained that Ms. thought she was speaking to the special education coordinator not .’s mother and when she realized that she was speaking to the H.E.’s mother, Ms. suggested that . wear an (trans. 997).

The parent stated that she was shocked to see , the Supervisor, at the February 29, 2012 IEP and she was shocked to see so many CSE personnel present ( , the Network Supervisor, Ms. , the Supervisor, Ms. , Ms. , the psychologist and the social worker) and that Ms. presented her report and described ’s physical decline. The parent recalled that only Ms. and Ms. spoke and then the team recommended no services. She further recalled that she was handed the notice of final recommendation (trans. 1023). She recalled that services were continued for 10 days after the meeting (trans. 1037). She recalled that Dr. examined her daughter on August 31, 2012 and noted a significant decline her in her (Exh. T) and maintained that her daughter struggled to pretend to play ball and attempted to perform all tasks that her peers could do, but could not (trans. 1055).

FINDING OF FACT, CONCLUSION OF LAW

The District must establish that it appropriately ascertained the child’s educational needs and prepared an IEP in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of federal and New York State Regulations. The parent asserted that the school district failed to offer a FAPE in that the CSE failed to offer an appropriate program for the 2011-2012 school year. The State Review Officer (SRO) has ruled on the issue of the type of procedural violation that would render an IEP invalid. The State Review Officer (SRO) has ruled on the issue of the type of procedural violation that would render an IEP invalid. In Appeal No. 09-096, the SRO ruled that ”While school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (A.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 553 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]; Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at *10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007]). Under the IDEA, if a procedural violation is alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decisionmaking process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008]; Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007] aff'd, 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008]).” The SRO in 06080 also ruled the Second Circuit held that “a school district fulfills its obligations under the IDEA if it provides an IEP that is “likely to produce progress, not regression” and if the student’s IEP affords him an opportunity greater than mere “trivial” advancement. Cerra v. Pawling CSD, 427 F.3d 186, 195, quoting Walczak v. Florida UFSD, 142 F.3d 119 130 [2d Cir. 1998] and that the student’s IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. Bd. Of Educ. v. Rowley, 485 U.S. 176, 206-207 [1982] Cerra v. Pawling CSD, 427 F. 3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005] and the IEP is likely to provide some “meaningful” benefit to the student. Mrs. B. v. Milford BOE, 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 (2d Cir. 1997).” The burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging the appropriateness of an IEP is on the Department of Education. N.Y. Educ. Law §4404[1][c].

The parents’ attorney asserted that DOE failed to provide a FAPE for 20112012 (IHO Exh. IX at 1). The parents’ attorney asserted that was denied FAPE for the 2011-2012 school year because the district failed to properly implement the May 17, 2011 IEP to provide the related services of individual twice per week for 60 minutes per session by an individual trained in prosthetics and to provide the related services of by an individual trained (Exh. A at 3, IX at 5). The parents’ attorney further asserted that the CSE improperly declassified H.E. during the 2011-2012 school year since insufficient evaluations and no assessments were conducted prior to the February 29, 2012 IEP that declassified H.E. (Exh. A at 3, IX at 7-14). The parents’ attorney argued that the DOE failed evaluations “sufficiently comprehensive to identify all the student’s special education needs and to ascertain the physical, mental, behavioral, and emotional factors which contribute to the suspected disability. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.4(b)(6)(xi), § 200.4(b)(1)(v) § 200.4(b)(5)(iii). See, 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(2)(A); 34 C.F.R. 300.305(c); See also, A.D. v. Ed. Of Educ., 690 F.Supp.2d 193 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)” (IHO Exh. XI at 8). The parents’ attorney asserted that the district failed to assess H.E. in all her areas of disability (Id.). The parents’ attorney further asserted that the SFA assessed very few bimanual tasks. I find that unlike the private occupational and physical evaluation dated February 7, 2012 (Exh. E) that detailed the related services needed to support in bimanual tasks, the evaluations presented by the district did not focus on the crux of H.E.’s disability as there was no assessment of . bimanual functioning.

The parents’ attorney asserted that was denied FAPE for the 2011-2012 school year as the DOE failed to provide with the mandated related services and accommodations of the IEP of May 17, 2011 IEP. I credit the testimony of the district witnesses that they did not provide related services during the 2011-2012 school year until the middle of October 2011 (30, 92, 155). I credit the parent’s testimony that she wanted to be provided . during the 2011-2012 prior to the middle of October 2011. The parents’ attorney asserted that the failure to provide appropriate mandated related services during the 2011-2012 led to regression of .’s skills and a decline in physical functioning (IHO Exh. X1 at 14). This assertion was not contested. The parent’s attorney presented evidence in the form of a letter from Dr. (Exh. T at 1) dated August 31, 2012 and the testimony of the private provider, Ms. (trans. 354-355)and the private PT provider, Ms. of the regression of skills and physical functioning. I credit the testimony of Ms. regarding the regression during the 2011-2012 school year (trans. 256, 359, 413, 427).

The parent’s attorney asserted that the district’s provider, Ms. and the district’s provider, Ms. failed to implement the goals of the March 24, 2011 IEP and the May 17, 2011 IEP and this failure adversely affected her physical development, her alignment and an increase in her , her and her academic performance (IHO Exh. IX at 15). I credit the testimony of the district witnesses that they did not work on the goals of the May 17, 2011 IEP (trans. 105;135). I credit the testimony of the district witnesses that they considered the goals of the May 2011 IEP were inappropriate (trans. 568; 590). I find the decision to not implement the goals of the May 17, 2011 was not supported by the record in light of .’s disability in bimanual functioning. I further testimony and evidence adduced at the hearing established limitations in visual tracking and regression of skills and physical functioning adversely affected .’s performance in and in writing (trans. 352, 484; 669-670).

The parents’ attorney argued the decision to declassify . was made prior to the February 29, 2012 IEP meeting (IHO Exh. IX at 16). While school districts are required to comply with all procedures set forth in the IDEA, not all procedural errors result in an inadequate IEP. If a procedural violation is alleged, a hearing officer may find that a student did not receive a free appropriate public education only if the procedural inadequacies: (1) impeded the student’s right to a free appropriate public education; (2) “significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of a free appropriate education” to the student; or (3) “caused a deprivation of educational benefits.” (20 U.S.C. §1415[f][3][E][ii]).

The procedural violation alleged was that the decision to declassify was made before the CSE meeting and this pre-determination was a denial of a FAPE. I find the credible testimony and emails of the supervisor of , Ms. established that: (a) she participated in a chain of emails (Exh. J) between the principal, Mr. the supervisor, Ms. regarding 2 pre-meetings between November 15, 2011 and February 15, 2012 to have an IEP meeting without the parent (trans. 863,871), (b) the decision to hold an IEP meeting in February 2012 without the parents was made despite the fact that the May 17, 2011 IEP was in effect (trans. 865), (c) the decision to remove related services and declassify was made prior to the February 29, 2012 CSE meeting as the 2 pre-meeting teams reviewed the goals of the May 2011 IEP and the decided the mandate did not match the functional level (trans. 867) and (d) the purpose of the February 2012 CSE meeting was to remove related services and declassify . (trans. 870), and the input from the parents and private provider was irrelevant to this decision. I find the procedural violation alleged in this case was met the criteria for determining when procedural inadequacies constitute a deprivation of a FAPE as the pre-determined decision to declassify “impeded H.E.’s right to FAPE. I also find the pre-determined decision to declassify . “significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision making process” because the parents were not included in the decision that was made prior to the February 29, 2012. The parents were denied such participation when the decision to declassify H.E. was made in their absence prior to the CSE meeting. The chain of emails dated January 4, 2012 to January 6, 2012, (Exh. J at 1 to 17) with from Ms. Hahn regarding the pre-meeting to Ms. the IEP coordinator, Ms. the provider, Ms r, the provider, Ms. , the principal, , the Network Supervisor, Ms. Supervisor and 2 other CSE personnel made clear the determination to decertify was a foregone conclusion. The email chain established the pre-determined decision as the pre-meetings with the entire CSE team “teacher, psychologist, et al.,” (Exh. J at 14), were to “review all the evaluations and prepare our united recommendation” (Exh. J at 15) and “recommend decertification” (Exh. J at 16). I credit the parent’s testimony that she repeatedly expressed her concerns about her daughter’s progress with the related services provided by the district. I credit the parent’s testimony that she expressed her concern about the declassification. However, the parent was excluded from the decision-making prior to the CSE meeting and her concerns were not considered by the CSE, and I find the CSE “significantly impeded” her opportunity to participate in the CSE process. I find the parent’s clear, credible and unrebutted testimony established that Ms. wanted to terminate services in June 2011 (trans. 994) and the parent was excluded from the decision making process in the February 29, 2012 IEP as the decision to declassify was made in June 2011.

On these procedural violation alone I find is a denial of a FAPE for however, I find that the fact that the decision to decertify . was made prior to the February 29, 2012 CSE meeting “impeded her right to a free appropriate public education” and “caused a deprivation of educational benefits.” I find this was a substantive violation because the decision was made without the benefit of a discussion with Ms. , the private provider or a discussion of her evaluation (Exh. F). I credit the testimony of Ms. , who stated that she brought up several functional tasks of cutting food, opening containers, doing snaps as bimanual activities and the need for to work on her ability to function in school and the CSE did not listen to her (trans. 754).

The DOE’s attorney contends that the record was replete with examples of how ’s educational performance was not only not adversely affected by her upper limb deficiency, but how she excelled in school (IHO Exh. X at 2). I find that the DOE had an obligation conduct evaluations to assess her functioning as a child without a left hand and the effects of being left hand dominant without a left hand as the CSE was possession of the evaluation by Ms. who that . demonstrated consistent left dominance (Exh. E at 6). Ms. also noted in her evaluation concerns in the following areas: movement (spinal alignment, range of motion, strength, symmetry of musculature, peripheral excursion of eye movement; hand skills (range of motion, prosthetic-potential); sensation (ocularmotor and perception if spinal alignment is not corrected) and life skills (dressing, eating, food preparation and utensil use (Exh. E 3, 4). The DOE attorney takes no position on whether . was left hand dominant; however, CSE was aware Ms. considered her . The CSE should have adjourned the February 29, 2012 meeting for the preparation of additional data as to the present levels of performance of a student considered without a . Under 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.4(b)(5)(ii)(a), on the basis of the review, and input from the student’s parents, the CSE and qualified professionals shall identify what additional data, if any, are needed to determine whether the student continues to have a disability. The same present levels of performance of a student can be applied to the classroom observation conducted by Ms . Ms. noted . “writing without any verbal complaints or objections” (Exh. 10). Ms. further noted that . “appears to use and her handwriting is on grade level and her print is legible (Exh. 10). Since the CSE did not engage in deliberations with the parents or with Ms. s regarding her conclusions regarding the present levels of performance of a student without a left hand, I find CSE’s silence on the performance levels of a student considered “impeded” right to a free appropriate public education and could have deprived her of educational benefits.

I find the position of the district witnesses and the DOE attorney (IHO Exh. X at

6) that did not need school-based services, but needed medical services is not supported by federal law or state law. I find “related services” under the IDEA are supportive services provided to a student with a disability to assist the child to benefit from his or her special education program pursuant to 34 C.F.R.300.34. Related services includes school health services and school nurse services, social work services in school, and parental counseling and training pursuant to 34 C.F.R. 300.34(a). The parents’ attorney argued that occupational therapy was designed to achieve “maximum physical and mental functioning of the student in his or her daily life tasks. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.1(gg)” (IHO IX at 24). I credit the testimony of the district’s witnesses who acknowledged that did not have functioning in her daily life tasks in dressing (trans. 158-159, 370). The parents’ attorney further argued that physical therapy used “physical, chemical, and mechanical means including massage” 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.1(ll) (Id.). I find an provider trained in prosthetics and a PT provider trained in prosthetics is school-based as defined by both federal and state law.

The DOE attorney asserted that . did not meet the definition of a per 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.1(zz)(9)(Exh. IHO X at 2). I find substantial evidence that .’s was a . I find the district’s own witnesses acknowledged her only caused by her . I further find the parents presented substantial evidence of and I find the demands of handwriting increased as her workload increased and the parents established required related services to meet those demands. Accordingly, I find the lack of for the 2011-2012 school year was a denial of FAPE I find the denial of during the 2011-2012 school year was a denial of FAPE.

The parents’ attorney asserted that the parents need not establish that the services the parents provider were appropriate and the parents acted in good faith as the parents are seeking a continuation of ’s last agreed program (IHO Exh. XI at 25). The parents’ attorney argued that while the Burlington/Carter analysis is used in reimbursement for a unilateral placement, this analysis is not appropriate in this case. “See Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 12-12 (1993); Burlington Sch. Comm. v. Dep’t of Education., 471 U.S. 359 (1985).” (IHO XI at 3). The parents’ attorney further noted that the Southern District of New York ruled on the whether the Burlington/Carter analysis applied in a case “procedurally analogous to this instant matter. M.N. and H.N. v. New York City Department of Education, 700 F.Supp.2d 356, 368 (S.D.N.Y)” (Id.). I agree that the Burlington/Carter analysis is not necessary when the relief sought is the continuation of related services; however, I note that the parents provided substantial evident to establish that the Ms. were qualified to provide appropriate services of and . to meet her unique need. The DOE attorney asserted that the equities did not favor the parent (IHO X at 17). I disagree and I find the parents cooperated with the DOE and the equities favor the parents.

Compensatory education refers to education for a person to compensate for educational deficiencies that occurred between the ages 3 to 21. It is a remedy granted to students deprived of FAPE. Compensatory education refers to education for a person to compensate for educational deficiencies that occurred between the ages 3 to 21. It is a remedy granted to students deprived of FAPE and students who have endured educational failures, and who have regressed during their school age years. Garro v. Connecticut, 23 F.3d 734 (2d Cir. 1994); Melvin v. Bolton School District, 100 F.3d 944 (2d Cir. 1996); Application of a Child Suspected of a Disability, Appeal No. 91-6. The SRO reviewed the issue of compensation and in Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 08054; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No.04-085; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No.02-047. See also Bd. of Educ. v. Munoz, 16 A.D.3d 1142, 1145 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005) (affirming an SRO decision to award “make-up services” to a student where the district failed to provide services described in his IEP). I find that to award compensatory services, there must be a finding of a denial of FAPE. Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No.04-085; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-054; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-109. I find the decision to terminate related services was not supported by the evidence. The SRO in Application of a Student with a Disability, 10-011 held that when the hearing record is devoid of evidence supporting the appropriateness of a reduction in services, then the SRO ordered the reinstatement of related services within 14 days of this decision.

The parents’ attorney asserted that is entitled to compensatory services for PT sessions missed at the start of the school year as agreed between the parent and Ms. for a total of 5 sessions. The parents’ attorney calculated that is entitled to make-up sessions for all cancelled and sessions as noted in the attendance log, (Exh. G), for a total of 11 sessions of and 6 sessions of PT (IHO Exh. IX at 29). I find that . is entitled to compensatory and services. I find the parties agreed that missed 9 hours of (trans.

399) and missed 6 hours of (trans. 400).

Order

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the DOE to create an IEP for . and classifying her as a student with an orthopedic impairment with related services of individual twice per week for 60 minutes per session by an provider trained in prosthetics and individual once a week for 60 minutes by a provider trained in prosthetics. The DOE shall pay , the private provider and , the private provider for services rendered during the pendency of this hearing. The parties agreed that missed 9 hours of (trans. 399) and . missed 6 hours (trans. 400). I order the DOE to provide . with compensatory services for 5 hours and I order the DOE provided make-up sessions for a total of 11 hours of and 6 hours of Lastly, I order the reinstatement of related services within 14 days of this decision. Dated: January 14, 2013

` ______________________________

LINDA S. AGOSTON, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

LSA:jj

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

“The notice of intention to seek review shall be 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. The petition for review shall be served upon the school district 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.”

(8NYCRR279.2[b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.

Directions and sample forms for filing an appeal are included with this decision. Directions and forms can also be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON APRILL 13, 2012

PARENT

A Impartial Hearing Request, 3/5/12, 3 pp. B IEP, 5/17/11, 11 pp.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JUNE 14, 2012

PARENT

C IEP Progress Report, 2011, 6 pp. D Letter from Dr. , 9/12/11, 2 pp. E Therapy Evaluation, 2/11/12, 6 pp. E Letter from the Parent to , 2/9/12, 2 pp. G Attendance for Therapy Services, 3/2012-10/2012, 6 pp. H Consent for Assessment Letter, 9/19/11, 1 p. I IEP Amendment Letter, 5/16/11, 1 p. J Email Correspondence, Various Dates, 19 pp.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1 Omitted 2 IEP, 3/24/2011, 14 pp. 3 Omitted 4 Physical Therapy Annual Review Plan, 12/14/11, 3 pp. 5 Evaluation of School Function and Participation,

1/25/11, 11 pp. 6 Recommendation Upon Declassification, 2/29/2012, 5 pp.

IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

II Extension Decision, 6/17/12, 1 p. (I note IHO Exh. I was incorrectly numbered in the transcript and should be IHO Exh. II)

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JULY 9, 2012

PARENT

K Text Mssage Screen Shot, Undated, 1 p. L Email Exchange Between Parent and Ms. 11/29/11, 2 pp. M Typed Page by , Undated, 1 p.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

8 Present Levels of Performance and Individual Needs, 1/9/12, 8 pp. 9 Teacher Observation and Notes on Progress, Undated, 1 p. (ID only)

IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

III Decision on Request for Extension of Time, 7/9/12, 1 p.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON AUGUST 13, 2012

PARENT

N Handwriting Sample, 6/26/12, 1 p. O Amendment to IEP, 5/16/11, 1 p.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

7 Email Correspondence, Various Dates, 7 pp.

10 Classroom Observation, 12/14/11 1 p.

IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

IV Extension of Timeline, 8/13/12, 1 p.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2012

P PT Notes from , 4/18/12-6/27/12, 11 pp. (ID only)

Q Email Correspondence, 12/4/11, 1 p.

R “ Validity and Reliability of Functional Test and Questionnaire for

Children With Congenital Upper Limb Reduction Deficiency,” 8/2005, 3 pp.

S “Abstract for the Unilateral Below Elbow Test: A Function Test for Children With Unilateral Congenital Below Elbow Deficiency, 7/2006, 1p. (ID only)

T Letter From Dr. 8/31/12, 2 pp.

U Omitted

V IEP Meeting Notice, 12/12/11, 2 pp.

W Handwriting Alphabet Sample (With Video), 1 pp.

X Photographs of Student, Undated, 3 Photographs

V Extension of Timeline, 9/13/12, 1p.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON OCTOBER 23, 2012

Y UBET Raw Data, Undated, 1 p.

Z ABA Raw Data, Undated, 1 p.

IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

VI Request for Extension, 10/23/12, 1 p.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON NOVEMBER 15, 2012

K Text Message Screen Shot, Undated, 1 p.

L Email Exchange Between Parent and Ms. , 11/29/11, 2 pp.

M Typed Page by , Undated, 1 p.

O Amendment to IEP, 5/16/11, 1 p.

P PT Notes from ,4/18/12-6/27/12, 11 pp.

S “Abstract for the Unilateral Below Elbow Test: a Function Test for

Children With Unilateral Congenital Below Elbow Deficiency, 7/2006, 1p.

U Email Correspondence, 2/12, 5 pp.

Y UBET Raw Data, undated, 1 p.

Z ABA Raw Data, undated, 1 p.

7 Email Correspondence, Various Dates, 7 pp.

8 Present Levels of Performance and Individual Needs, 1/9/12, 8 pp.

9 Teacher Observation and Notes on Progress, Undated, 1 p.

10 Observation, 12/14/11, 1 p.

IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

VII Request for Extension, 11/15/12, 1 p.

POST HEARING SUBMISSIONS

IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

I Extension of Timeline, 5/11/12, 1 p. VIII Extension of Timeline, 12/21/12, 1 p. IX Closing Brief of the Parents’ Attorney, 12/28/12, 29 pp. X Closing Brief of the District’s Attorney, 12/28/12, 19 pp.