New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 547862 - NYC: 204356

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 204356

Student’s Name: [REDACTED]

Date of Birth: [REDACTED]

District: [REDACTED]

Hearing Requested by: [REDACTED]

Date of Hearing: January 24, 2022

Record Close: March 24, 2022

Hearing Officer: Peter D. Hoffman

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JANUARY 24, 2022

(All present by video or telephone)

For the Student:

[REDACTED] Attorney

[REDACTED] Parent

[REDACTED] Clinical Psychologist

[REDACTED] Psychiatrist

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED] Attorney

INTRODUCTION

This case was brought before me pursuant to appointment by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 United States Code §1415(f)(1). The hearing demand / complaint letter was filed by the parent on November 25, 2020., P-A. The hearing was held on two dates; October 28, 2021, and January 24, 2022. T:12. There were no witnesses nor exhibits from the district, and 45 exhibits from the parent containing six affidavits. The district performed no cross examination of the parents’ affiants and did not have a rebuttal case and solely relies on its closing brief. Moreover, the district asserts that there was no FAPE offered to the student. District Closing Brief, p.2. The record is absent a showing by the district that it ever answered the parents’ complaint letter or had produced a Prior Written Notice.

The parents are demanding the following relief:

• • The DOE failed to provide [REDACTED] a FAPE for the 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021school years; and the DOE should be ordered to reimburse and/or prospectively fund tuition for placement at the [REDACTED] Academy, [REDACTED] School, [REDACTED] Academy program and the [REDACTED] School, along with related services, as recommended.
• • Provide funding for an assistive technology evaluation, speech/language
• • evaluation, and a behavioral consultation and evaluation;
• • Provide reimbursement for the private neuropsychological testing;
• • Provide reimbursement for travel to the school to receive required parent training,
• • counseling, and family visits;
• • Issue a legally sufficient IEP;
• • Reconvene the CSE to form a legally sufficient IEP and offer an appropriate
• • placement based upon legally adequate and appropriate evaluations;
• • Reconvene the CSE to recommend a residential school program and setting;
• • Provide transportation to and from school;
• • An admission that FAPE was denied for all school years at issue.
• • An admission that the [REDACTED] Academy, [REDACTED] School, [REDACTED] Academy program and the [REDACTED] School is/are an appropriate placement for [REDACTED] for the various school years at issue.
• • An admission that the equities favor the parents.
• • A legally sufficient IEP that recommends a 12-month residential therapeutic
• • program for the student.
• • A reconvening of the CSE to recommend a 12-month residential school program.
• • Attorneys’ fees and costs;^[1] and
• • Any and all relief deemed appropriate.

JURISDISCTION

• • A decision in this matter is being rendered, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 24 C.F.R. §300 et seq., and the New York State Education Law, Educ. Law Art 89 § 4404 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.

BACKGROUND / FINDINGS OF FACT

The student is a [REDACTED] boy. He has been diagnosed with the following: Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Conversion Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, and Unspecified Anxiety Disorder. P-F, pp. 10-11.

The student’s private evaluator described the student, and his needs as follows:

“It was clearly noted in the meeting that [REDACTED] requires a 12-month program that provides her access to therapeutic support (specifically Dialectical Behavior Therapy with a qualified psychologist) for her emotional dysregulation in school, as these struggles negatively impact her learning in the classroom and her overall educational performance. Although [REDACTED]’s current school, [REDACTED] Academy, which is a one-to-one program, coupled with her weekly therapeutic sessions after school is currently working for her, she requires a small ((class ratio 15:1 or smaller), structured, and supportive classroom setting housed within a small, therapeutic, and nurturing school environment. In my professional opinion, if [REDACTED] is not provided with such therapeutic supports, she will not be able to progress academically, and her emotional distress will increase further.”

P-I, p. 2.

The mother described the student as follows:

“[REDACTED] has been diagnosed with ADHD and a mood disorder characterized by social and behavioral challenges, difficulty with task completion, poor self-confidence, obsessive compulsive behaviors, anxiety, suicidal ideation and multiple suicide attempts, and depressive symptoms. He requires behavioral supports and significant help with emotional regulation.”

P-QQ, ¶2.

The student attended [REDACTED] School ("[REDACTED] ") from kindergarten through eighth grade. P-QQ, ¶7. In November 2016, the student was diagnosed with [REDACTED] and placed in a hospital for suicidal ideation. P-QQ, ¶10. In February 2017, the student started seeing Dr. [REDACTED]. He was also evaluated by the [REDACTED] [REDACTED] research study at [REDACTED] [REDACTED in March and May of 2017 where he was found to be at average to above average cognitive and academic ability. P-QQ, ¶11.The student participated in DBT therapy with Dr. [REDACTED] from November 2017 -May 2018, P-QQ, ¶12. On May 24, 2018, the student was hospitalized for a significant anger outburst. P-QQ, ¶17. The student graduated [REDACTED] 2018 and started at [REDACTED] H.S., in the fall of that year. The student immediately had trouble at [REDACTED] and was asked to leave in October 2018. P-QQ, ¶19 The parents contacted the NYCDOE in November 2018 to seek services for the student. P-QQ, 22. At the same time the parents enrolled the student at [REDACTED] Academy and notified the district of the same. P-QQ, ¶23. In December 2018, the parents again contacted the NYCBOE for placement and services as none had been provide by this time. P-QQ, ¶24. At the same time they provided the NYCBOE a neuropsychological report P-QQ, ¶24. The parents participated in a social history interview with the NYCBOE in late December 2018 but still no interim supports, placement or services were provided to the student. P-QQ, ¶26.

In February 2019, a CSE Meeting was held and an IEP was developed and received a month later. P-QQ, ¶28, 30. “The February 2019 IEP classified [REDACTED] as Others Health Impaired and recommended general education with push-in SETSS 5 periods per week along with pull-out counseling (2x40xl:l). This was to take place in a general education program. We communicated at the meeting that this was inappropriate and not supportive enough for [REDACTED].” P-QQ, ¶29. In March 2019, the parents received a placement letter for [REDACTED]. P-QQ, ¶30. The parents visited the school and reported back to the district that the placement was not appropriate for the student. P-QQ, ¶31. Meanwhile the student made academic progress at [REDACTED]. P-QQ, ¶35.

In June 2019, the parents provided the district with a follow up neuropsychological evaluation but no response from the district was forthcoming. P-QQ, ¶33. In June 2019, the parents received the same IEP and placement. P-QQ, ¶34. In July 2019, the parents again in a letter to the district rejected the IEP and the placement. P-QQ, ¶36. The parents again rejected the IEP and placement in August 2019 and stated that the student would again attend [REDACTED] Academy. P-QQ, ¶37.

In October 2019, the student was discharged from [REDACTED] and the parents immediately informed the district that the student would attend the [REDACTED] School. P-QQ, ¶38. There was no response to this from the district. P-QQ, ¶39. In October 2019, the parents provided a letter from the student’s therapist to the district and again there was no response from the school district. P-QQ, ¶40. In December 2019, the student had a psychotic episode and was hospitalized. P-QQ, ¶41. Shortly after [REDACTED] placed the student on leave so that he could receive a higher degree of care. P-QQ, ¶42. The student entered [REDACTED] Academy in January 2020 and the parents informed the district of the same. P-QQ, ¶43.

In February 2020, the student had another psychotic episode and was hospitalized. P-QQ, ¶45. The parents informed the district about this hospitalization. At the end of February 2020, the parents wrote the district again and included a new neuropsychological report, [REDACTED] Reports, ER discharge reports, [REDACTED] reports and again there was no response from the district. P-QQ, ¶46. At the end of ninety days the student was discharged home from [REDACTED]. P-QQ, ¶48. While at [REDACTED] the students academic and emotional needs were met. P-QQ, ¶49.Again the district offered no supports and / or services. P-QQ, ¶¶50-51. During this time, the student suffered another psychotic episode with a suicidal component and was hospitalized again at [REDACTED] and then [REDACTED]. P-QQ, ¶¶52-53.

The student was again hospitalized in August 2020 with suicide attempt and psychotic episode at [REDACTED] and subsequently placed at [REDACTED] in [REDACTED] [REDACTED]. This was a therapeutic placement. P-QQ, ¶54. The parents again informed the district concerning this in writing. P-QQ, ¶55. This was followed by the district seeking to settle the parents claim in September 2020. P-QQ, ¶56.But the district never made an offer. P-QQ, ¶57. At the same time the district failed to offer an IEP or placement for the 2020-2021 school year. The CSE did not convene until November 2020 and did not draft an IEP and or have a placement but recommending the matter to CBST and again the parent rejected the program offered. P-QQ, ¶59.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This is largely a tuition reimbursement matter. The Supreme Court established a three-part test to determine whether a district may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private school: (1) was the IEP proposed by the school district inappropriate; and (2) was the private placement appropriate to the child’s needs and (3) whether equitable considerations favored reimbursement, Board of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179 (1982), Gagliardo v. Arlington Central School District, 489 F. 3d 105, 111 (2nd Cir. 2007), Burlington School Comm. v. Mass. Dept. of Ed., 471 US 359, 370, (1985), Florence County School District Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 12-16, 114 S. Ct. 361, 126 L. Ed. 2d 284 (1993).

• • In Jennifer D. As Parent of Travis D. v. New York City Department of Education, 550 F. Supp. 2d 420 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), the Court found that the parent carried her burden to establish that the unilateral placement program was specially designed to meet her son’s needs because it provided a sufficiently structured environment with specific services. If the two-part Burlington test is satisfied, the Court has discretion to consider relevant equitable factors. Jennifer D. at 429.
• • An IHO’s inquiry into matters brought pursuant to the IDEA involves two distinct elements. First, the hearing officer must determine whether the school system has complied with the procedures set forth in the IDEA. Rowley at 176. Second, the IHO must assess whether the IEP developed through those procedures was reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Id.
• • A procedural violation can be denial of a FAPE if it: (1) impeded the child's right to a FAPE; (2) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a [FAPE]; or (3) caused a deprivation of educational benefits." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); A.D. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38757 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2013). Internal quotations omitted). “Multiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not.” Id.
• • The Supreme Court in Rowley did not explain what educational benefits means but this changed with its decision Endrew F. V. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988. (2017). The Court held that an IEP and placement must “be reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances” Id. at 999. Endrew also clarified what deference meant in IDEA cases by requiring that the actions of the authorities be “cogent and responsive.” Id. at 1002.

DISCUSSION

POINT I

THE DISTRICT FAILED TO OFFER A FAPE TO THE STUDENT

• • The district has the burden of proof to show that their program will provide FAPE. The district failed to answer the parent’s complaint and did not rely on its Prior Written Notice if there was one. The district did not carry its burden of proof when it decided to not supply any witness or documents to support their position on the appropriateness of the program offered. The burden of proof is on the district to show that its IEP and program are appropriate. New York Educ. Law. §4404(1)(c). The district did not even try to address the burden of proof to show that the IEP and program offered were appropriate for the student. Therefore, the district failed to show that the IEP and / or program offered provided FAPE to the student. In fact, the district waived its rights under Prong I. District Closing Brief, p.2. Moreover, the parent showed, through unrebutted testimony, that the programs offered by the district were not appropriate. Accordingly, the district failed to provide FAPE to the student for the 2020-2021 school year.

Procedural violations warrant relief only if they "'(I) impeded the child's right to a [FAPE]; (II) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of [a FAPE] to the parents' child; or (III) caused a deprivation of educational benefits.'" Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii)).

• • C.H. v. Goshen Cent. Sch. Dist., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44991, *23, (SDNY, 2013). R.E. v. New York City Dep't. of Educ., 694 F. 3d 167, 192-193 (2d Cir. 2012) (footnote and citations omitted). Here the district failed to meet its burden because the district failed to put on any case whatsoever and didn’t have a CSE Meeting or IEP ready for the beginning of the school year by nearly two months.

POINT II

THE PRIVATE SCHOOL UNITLATERAL PLACEMENT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE STUDENT

The unilateral private school placement is appropriate for the student. There is a totality of the circumstances test that includes but is not limited to:

No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents' unilateral placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child's individual needs. To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child's potential. They 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.

Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 364-365 (2d Cir. 2006). Also see Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., (2d Cir. 2006), 489 F.3d 105, 112, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 12451, *18-19.

First parents are not held as strictly to the standard of placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE) as school districts and the fact that a school educates only students with disabilities is not a bar to reimbursement. W.S. and L.S. on behalf of C.S. v. Rye City School District, 454 F. Supp. 2d 134, 139 (S.D.N.Y., 2006), citing M.S. v. Bd. of Education of the City School District of Yonkers, 231 F. 3d 96, 105 (2d Cir., 2000). Parents seeking reimbursement bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate. M.S. v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 104 (2nd Cir. 2000). With limited exceptions, “the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the [s]chool [d]istrict’s placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents’ placement.” The issue is whether a public or private placement is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” Frank G., at 364, (quoting Rowley, at 207). A private placement meets this standard if it is “likely to produce progress, not regression.” Walczak v. Florida Union Free School Dist., 142 F. 3d 119, 130, (2d Cir., 1998).

The parent has the burden to establish that its choice of unilateral placement is appropriate for the student. The parent is seeking tuition reimbursement from the district for placement at the private school. Here, the program offered to the student is individualized and uniquely designed for the student. Jennifer D. at 429. The program is appropriate if the student can make progress in light of his or her circumstances. Endrew at 998 and 1001. Here, the program was appropriate for the student. Here again, the district did not contest Prong II in any way. The district submitted no exhibits, had no witnesses, no cross examined the parents’ affiants, put on no rebuttal case.

The private school provided testimony that elucidated the uniqueness of the education provided to the student. In addition, the student made progress in the placements. The unrebutted testimony of the parent as seen above shows that the programs chosen for the student were appropriate.

POINT III

CHILD FIND AND THE STATUTE of LIMITATIONS The district raised the issue of statute of limitations for the first time in it closing brief. District Closing Brief, pp. 2-3. As noted earlier there was no answer to the complaint, no prior written notice, no witnesses, no documents, no cross-examination and no rebuttal case. Moreover, the parents claim that there is a child find violation. Parents’ Closing Brief. pp. 8-10.

Child find" refers to a local school district's obligation to provide special education services to disabled students placed by their parents in private schools. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(A)(ii)(II); 34 C.F.R. § 300.131(b). Even absent a referral from the parents, the district had a duty to fulfill its child find obligations under the IDEA and Section 504. The "child find" provisions of the IDEA place an affirmative duty on state and local educational agencies to identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities residing in the state. (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][3l[A]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.125[al[ll[i]; 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][7]; New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist. v. St. Pierre, 307 F. Supp. 2d 394, 400 n.13 [N.D.N.Y. 2004]; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-073; Application of a Child with A Disability, Appeal No 04-054; Application of a Child with a Disability. Appeal No. 93-41). Both the Federal and State regulations make clear that a school district's obligation to evaluate extends to all children "suspected" of having a disability, not just to students who ultimately are determined by a CSE to be "a child with a disability." See 34 C.F.R. Sec.300.111 (c)(i); New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist. v. St. Pierre, 307 F. Supp. 2d 394, 400 [N.D.N.Y. 2004]. The “child find" duty requires referral for an evaluation when the district "has reason to suspect a disability and reason to suspect that special education services may be needed to address that disability" (Dept. of Educ. v. Cari Rae S., 158 F. Supp. 2d 1190 [D. Haw. 2001]; see 8 NYCRR 200.2, 200.4). The provision applies to children who are suspected of being a student with a disability and in need of special education, even though they are advancing from grade to grade (34 C.F.R. § 300.125[al[2l[ii]; see 8 NYCRR 200.4).

Here the district utterly failed to identify the student as a student with a disability in the 2018-2019 school year and before. Therefore, the statute of limitations argument of the district holds no sway in this decision for the 2018-2019 school year.

POINT IV

THE EQUITIES FAVOR THE PARENTS

The authority to grant reimbursement is discretionary and therefore when deciding on the extent of reimbursement to award parents, courts may take into account equitable factors. (Carter, 510 U.S. 7; Burlington at 369-70. Also see, G.B. v. Tuxedo Union Free Sch. Dist., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124319 *61 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2010); M.C. ex rel. Mrs. C. v. Voluntown Bd. of Educ., 226 F.3d 60, 68 (2d Cir. 2000); Frank G., 459 F.3d at 363-364; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112. Under IDEA, the reimbursement may be reduced or denied if parents fail to make their child available for evaluation by the district, fail to provide notice of the unilateral placement or if the actions taken by the parents are found to be unreasonable.

The parents cooperated with the district. They provided timely ten days’ notices. P-A. The parents provided reports to the district. P-C, D, E, J and K. The district failed to cross examine the parents’ affiants in a meaningful manner and failed to put on any rebuttal case on the issue of cooperation and accordingly, conceded Prong III. Accordingly, the equities favor the parents and full tuition reimbursement for the 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years.

DECISION AND ORDER

I find the other arguments of the parties to be unavailing. The claim for 504 relief by the parents was never argued and not a part of the initial complaint letter.

It is hereby ordered that:

• • Full funding for [REDACTED] Academy for the 2018-2019 school year in the amount of $50,569.30;
• • Full funding for [REDACTED] Academy for the 2019-2020 school year in the amount of $27,400.00.
• • Funding for the [REDACTED] school for late 2019 in the amount of $10,785.00;
• • Funding for [REDACTED] Academy after insurance payments in the amount of $14,087.00;
• • Full funding for tuition costs and other affiliated costs after insurance payment for [REDACTED];
• • Funding for neuropsychological evaluation by Dr. [REDACTED], Ph.D. which was conducted in 2018 at a cost not to exceed, $5,000.
• • Funding for the neuropsychological evaluation by Dr. [REDACTED] Psy.D. which was conducted in January 2020. The cost does not exceed $6,000
• • Dated: March 24, 2022 Katonah NY ______________________________ By, Peter D. Hoffman, IHO

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Within 40 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 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 proceedings 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.

PARENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit

Description

Date

Pages

A Impartial Hearing Request/Due Process Complaint 11/25/2020 14

B Individualized Education Program 2019 02/13/2019 16

C Individualized Education Program 2020 11/16/2020 18

D Parent Letter to CSE 10/19/2018 3

E Parent Letter to CSE 11/19/2018 4

F

Parent Letter and Email to CSE with attached October 2017 report by Dr. REDACTED]

12/06/2018

18

G Parent Letter to CSE [REDACTED] with Attached Neuropsychological Testing Appendix by Dr. [REDACTED], Ph.D 12/20/2018 4

H Parent Letter to CSE [REDACTED] with fax confirmation Regarding IEP Recommendations and Placement 04/08/2019 3

I Parent Email to CSE with attached April 2019 response by Dr. [REDACTED] 06/11/2019 4

J Parent Letter to CSE [REDACTED] Regarding IEP and Placement 07/03/2019 1

K Parent Letter to CSE [REDACTED] Regarding IEP, Placement and [REDACTED] Academy 08/23/2019 5

L Parent Letter to CSE [REDACTED] Regarding IEP and Placement at [REDACTED] Academy and [REDACTED] School 10/22/2019 2

M Parent Email to CSE with attached October 2019 letter by Dr. [REDACTED] 11/02/2019 3

N Parent Letter to CSE Regarding IEP and School Placement with attached [REDACTED] ER discharge paperwork 01/06/2020 9

O Parent Letter to CSE [REDACTED] re New Developments and Emergency Placement with multiple attachments 02/28/2020 46

P Parent Email to CSE with attached January 2020 neuropsychological report by Dr. [REDACTED] Psy.D 03/11/2020 21

Q Parent Email to CSE [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] Regarding Emergency Placement with proof of mailing and attached August 2020 Letter by Dr. [REDACTED] 08/31/2020 5

R [REDACTED] Academy Tutoring Enrollment Contract 11/14/2018 7

S [REDACTED] Academy Enrollment Contract 11/16/2018 3 T [REDACTED] Academy Monthly Progress Reports via Email Various Dates in 2019 16

U Social History Report by [REDACTED] LMSW,CASAC 11/04/2020 2

V [REDACTED] Discharge Summary 12/10/2019 4

W [REDACTED] Discharge Instructions and Medication List 06/22/2020 7

X [REDACTED] Discharge Instructions and Medication List 08/14/2020 4

Y [REDACTED] Discharge Instructions and Medication List 08/24/2020 6

Z [REDACTED] Hospital Discharge Summary 02/11/2020 12

AA [REDACTED] Academy Weekly Progress Reports January 13–May 4, 2020 01/13/2020-05/04/2021 8

BB [REDACTED] Academy RTC Record Various Dates in 2020 11

CC [REDACTED] Joint Commission Accreditation 06/19/2019 1

DD [REDACTED] Enrollment Forms 08/24/2020 7

EE [REDACTED] Enrollment Agreement 08/31/2020 1

FF [REDACTED] Invoices and Proof of Payment 08/26/2020-12/01/2020 4

GG [REDACTED] Progress Reports 09/06/2020-01/21/2021 16

HH [REDACTED] Office of Licensing 2020-2021 06/01/2020-05/31/2021 1 II [REDACTED] Office of Licensing 2021-2022 06/01/2021-05/31/2022 1

JJ [REDACTED] Accreditation Valid Through 06/30/2024 1

KK [REDACTED] Brochure Undated 2

LL Determination Report and Settlement Demand 09/21/2020, 05/18/2021 120

MM DOE Social History Evaluation 12/21/2018 3

NN Neuropsychological Re-Evaluation by Dr. [REDACTED] 12/29/2018 11

OO Affidavit of testimony of [REDACTED], [REDACTED] Academy 10/28/2021 5

PP Affidavit of testimony Dr. [REDACTED] Psy.D. 10/28/2021 5

QQ Affidavit of testimony of [REDACTED], mother 10/27/2021 11

RR Affidavit of Dr. [REDACTED], Ph.D. 10/29/2021 2

SS Affidavit of Dr. [REDACTED] MD, Ph.D Undated 4

TT

Affidavit of [REDACTED] LCSW

11/10/2021 3

13

Footnotes

[1] A hearing officer does not have the authority to grant attorney fees.