NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINAL ORDER - DOE DEFAULT & INQUEST - PARENT SUBMISSIONS
Case Number: 182349
NYS Identifier Number
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Dates(s) of Hearing: 06/11/20 & 07/10/20
Actual Record Close Date: 10/19/20
Hearing Officer: Edgar De Leon
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
Name Title For Date DOE Representative DOE 06/11/20 (T) 07/10/20 (T) Attorney PARENT 06/11/20 (T) 07/10/20 (T)
Mother PARENT 06/11/20 (T) 07/10/20 (T) Intern PARENT 06/11/20 (T) 07/10/20 (T) Interpreter PARENT 06/11/20 (T) Interpreter PARENT 07/10/20 (T)
PARENT 07/10/20 (T)
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD
Number/Letter Title Dated For # of Pages
PARENT’S EXHIBITS
L Date Name/Descriptio Nu
etter n mber of
April 25, Amended Due 6
A 2019 Process
B March 28, Pro Se Due 2
2019 Process
C August 19, IEP
2019
April 9, IEP
D
E 2020
February 3, Treatment Summary 1
2016 Letter, New York
Psychotherapy and
F October 24, Child Symptom 4
2017 Inventory: Teacher
December 2, Neurology Report. 1
G 2017
December 5, Diagnosis Letter, 1
H 2017 Montefiore
I April 9, DOE Social 3
2018 History
J May 3, DOE 4
2018 Psychoeducational
May 14, DOE Classroom 2
K 2018 Observation
L May 23, DOE Prior Written 6
M 2018
November 14, Notice
DOE Report 2
2018
July 10, CardDOE 5
N 2019 Psychoeducational
July 8, DOE 6
O 2019 Speech/Language
P January 29, Speech/Language
2020 Evaluation 14
November 25, Neuropsychology
Q 2019 Evaluation 18
R May 21, Affidavit, 3
2020
S May 21, Letter, 1
T 2020
May 21, R 1
2020
Undated 2
U
June 3, Proof of 1
V
W 2020
July 1, Disclosure
Proof of 1
2020 Disclosure –
***Parent’s exhibits “C”, “E”, “F”, “G”, “H”, “I”, “J”, “K”, “L” & “M” not formally received in evidence***
N/A N/A N/A IHO N/A
On September 30, 2019, I was appointed the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) to conduct an impartial hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( “IDEA”), 20 USC § 1415(f)(3), Article 89 of the New York State Education Law, Part 200 of the Regulations of the New York State Commissioner of Education and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, concerning a dispute between the Parent of a year old student attending a public school and the New York City - Department of Education (“DOE”) - , regarding the student’s special education program. I was appointed after the recusal of at least one other IHO. After having adjournments granted at the request of and with the consent of the parties, or for good cause, the impartial hearing was held on June 11, 2020 and July 10, 2020. A list of the persons who appeared via affidavits and the documents entered into evidence is annexed hereto.
BACKGROUND
This case was initiated as the result of a written Due Process Complaint (“DPC”)
filed by the Parent “pro se” on or about March 28, 2019 and carried under New York City (“NYC”) . On April 25, 2019, attorney(s) filed an amended DPC on behalf of the Parent. (P-A) The Parent herein alleges that the student was denied a “free and appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) for the 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 school years in that the student is not performing at grade level. At the impartial hearing, the Parent request the following relief:
(a) Greater supports, a new set of evaluations and a smaller classroom like a 12:1:1 setting or an ICT class; and
(b) Initiate a CSE evaluation to classify the student as a student eligible for special education services and begin offering him appropriate special education services; and
(c) Initiate counseling as a related service; and
(d) Pay for the student to receive a set number of hours of one-to-one tutoring in math and English language arts from a provider of the parent’s choosing, at a rate to be determined at hearing; and
(e) Pay for the student to receive an independent neuropsychological evaluation by a provider of the Parent’s choosing; and
(f) Pay for the student to receive a speech-language evaluation by a provider of the Parent’s choosing; and
(g) Convene an IEP meetings within (10) days of completion of all evaluations to determine the appropriate class placement for the student; and
(h) Translate all educational documents created on or after April 25, 2019, into Spanish, and provide live Spanish-English and English-Spanish interpretation to the Parent at all IEP meetings; and
(i) Issue any other relief that may be appropriate.
At the hearing, the parties agreed that the only issue to be determined at the hearing is the Parent’s request for compensatory education services and translation of special education documents into Spanish. (T-12-3)
FINAL ORDER
The Parents’ DPC having been duly filed pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 USC § 1415(f)(3), Article 89 of the New York State Education Law, Part 200 of the Regulations of the New York State Commissioner of Education and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and
Notice having been duly given to the DOE; and
The matter having come on for a final “impartial hearing” before this IHO on June 11, 2020 and July 10 2020, and this decision being made on the basis of the submission of documentary and testamentary evidence pursuant to 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][3][xii][f] (P-
R), of which the DOE cross examined the Parent’s witness but did not controvert the testimony (T-34-7); and
Whereas the Parent appeared with her attorney(s), , attorney assigned and the DOE by its representative, [CONFIDENTIAL; and
Whereas the Doe defaulted on its statutory burden and the parties having conducted an “inquest” on the Parent’s request for relief and a proposed “Final Order” being based upon the Parent’s uncontroverted testamentary and documentary submissions (T-13 & 34-7); and
Whereas under the IDEA, the burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing is placed upon the party seeking relief. (See Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. at 59-62) On August 15, 2007, the New York State Legislature amended the Education Law to place the burden of proof upon the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement would continue to have the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement. (See Educ. Law § 4404[1][c], as amended by Ch. 583 of the Laws of 2007) The amended statute took effect for impartial hearings commenced on or after October 14, 2007. (SRO No. 08-
016); and
Whereas the DOE having failed to submit any testamentary or documentary evidence to meet it burden under the law (T-8-12); and
Whereas to demonstrate the appropriateness of the relief sought, the Parent need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of the student, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the student to benefit from instruction. (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65); and
Whereas in the absence of evidence demonstrating that the Parent has failed to cooperate in the development of the IEP or otherwise engaged in conduct that precluded the development of an appropriate IEP, or failed to give proper notice, equitable considerations generally support a claim of the relief sought by the Parent, including but not limited to tuition reimbursement. (SRO No. 04-049); and
Whereas there being nothing in the record that sustains a finding that the Parent has not cooperated with the CSE; and
Whereas the Parent has submitted the testimony of (1) witness on direct examination via affidavits pursuant to 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][3][xii][f], (P-R), and the DOE having cross examined one witnesses but did not controvert her testimony (T-34-7); and
Whereas the Parent’s testamentary and documentary submissions are uncontroverted and need not be repeated herein as they are annexed hereto for the benefit of the reader; and
Whereas the DOE has failed to meet its burden under the law and the Parent’s submission clearly reflects that the relief sought meets the unique needs of the student, supported by such services as are necessary that permits the student to benefit from that relief. (Gagliardo & Frank G., supra); and
Whereas there is no evidence that the Parent has not cooperated with the DOE;
and
Whereas the parties’ oral arguments, discussions, concessions, testamentary and documentary evidence and this order having been recorded and annexed hereto; and
Whereas the IDEA specifically includes transportation, as well as any modifications or accommodations necessary in order to assist a student to benefit from his or her special education, in its definition of related services. (See 20 U.S.C. § 1401[26], see also 34 CFR 300.34[a], [c][16]); and
Whereas in addition, State law defines special education as “specially designed instruction . . . and transportation, provided at no cost to the parents to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability,” and requires school districts to provide disabled students with “suitable transportation to and from special classes or programs.” (See Educ. Law §§ 4401[1], 4402[4][a], see also Educ. Law § 4401[2] and 8 NYCRR 200.1[ww]); and
Whereas specialized transportation must be included on a student's IEP if required to assist the student to benefit from special education. (SRO No. 03-053); and
Whereas if a CSE determines that a student with a disability requires transportation as a related service in order to receive a FAPE, the district must ensure that the student receives the necessary transportation at public expense. (See Transportation, 71 Fed. Reg. 46576 [Aug. 14, 2006]; see 8 NYCRR 200.1[ww]); and
Whereas the State Education Department has indicated that a CSE should consider a student's mobility, behavior, communication, physical, and health needs when determining whether or not a student requires transportation as a related service, and that an IEP “must include specific transportation recommendations to address each of the student's needs, as appropriate.” (See “Special Transportation for Students with Disabilities,” VESID Mem. [Mar. 2005]); and
Whereas other relevant considerations may include the student's age, ability to follow directions, ability to function without special transportation, the distance to be traveled, the nature of the area, and the availability of private or public assistance. (See Donald B. v. Bd. of Sch. Commrs., 117 F.3d 1371, 1375 [11th Cir. 1997] and Malehorn
v. Hill City Sch. Dist., 987 F. Supp. 772, 775 [D.S.D. 1997]); and
Whereas when reviewing the transportation provisions made for a student by a district, the relevant question is whether the transportation arrangements are appropriate to meet the student's needs. (SRO No. 03-054); and
Whereas in this case, the record does not reflect the student’s needs special education transportation; and
Whereas there is no evidence in the record that the DOE has recommended that the student receive special education transportation services; and
Whereas there is no request as to the student's need for special transportation during the relevant school year or any indication that special transportation was previously requested, beyond the Parent’s request in the DPC; and
Whereas additionally, there is no evidence in the hearing record as to how the student was transported to and from school each day during the relevant school year; and
Whereas accordingly, the hearing record does not support a finding that the district denied the student a FAPE due to the lack of provision for special transportation; and
Whereas however, this does not constitute a determination regarding the student's entitlement to transportation as available to regular education students or suitable transportation as available to students attending nonpublic schools “for the purpose of receiving services or programs similar to special education programs recommended” by the CSE. (See Educ. Law 3635; 4402[4][[d]); and
Whereas if the DOE has not done so already, may consider transportation of the student to his private tutoring services in accordance with the above; and
Whereas the DOE’s default constitutes a concession of a denial of FAPE and the uncontroverted testamentary and documentary evidence submitted by the Parent and annexed hereto supports the Parent’s request for relief as detailed below.
Now, therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that upon the DOE’s receipt of reasonably satisfactory proof of said services having been rendered, the DOE shall either reimburse the Parent and/or directly pay the cost of the student’s receipt of (700) hours of compensatory education services from at a rate not to exceed ($125) per hours and that the DOE shall have all of the student’s special education papers translated into Spanish for the Parent; and it is further
ORDERED that the DOE shall conduct evaluations of the student in all areas of his suspected disabilities, not evaluated within the last two years, for his 2020-2021 school year; and it is further
ORDERED that the CSE shall forthwith reconvene to produce a new IEP for the student that considers all of the student’s available evaluations and any related information and produce a new IEP for the student’s 2020-2021 school year; and it is further
ORDERED that any of the other relief sought by the Parent not addressed by this “Final Order” is found to be either resolved by the parties, withdrawn by the Parent, outside the scope of the IHO’s authority or unsupported by the record.
DATED: October 27, 2020 _______________________
New York, New York Edgar De Leon - IHO
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Within 40 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the PublicSchool 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 either party plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally served upon the opposing party no later than 25 days after the date of the decision sought to be reviewed.
An appealing party’s request for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party within 40 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing party shall file the notice of intention to seek review, notice of request for review, request for review, and proof of service with the Office of State Review of the State Education Department within two days after service of the request for review is complete. The rules of procedure for appeals before an SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part 279 and model forms are available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov. (Rev. 07/09/20)