Skip to main content
Special Education Law
DECISIONMixed ResultIHO Case No. 210010

New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

May 14, 2022·Steven P. Forbes·New York City Department of Education

NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.

CASE NUMBER: 553908 - NYC: 210010

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Student Name: [REDACTED]

(“Student”)

Parent Names: [REDACTED]

(“Parent”)

Case Number: 210010

Birthdate: [REDACTED]

District: [REDACTED]

Hearing Requested By: Family

Date of Request: 7-2-21

Date(s) of Hearing: 2-15-22; 4-11-22

Actual Record Closed Date: 5-2-22

Date of Decision: 5-14-22

Hearing Officer: Steven P. Forbes

Appearing for the Parent: [REDACTED]

Appearing for the District: [REDACTED]

STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF NEW YORK

_______________________________________________X In the Matter of a Complaint Pursuant to Part 200 of the Case No.: 210010

Regulations of the Commissioner of Education Regarding,

STUDENT[1], a minor, by and through his/her

Parent(s), FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Petitioners AND DECISION

-against-

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

Respondent.

________________________________________________X

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This matter came before the hearing officer by way of a due process complaint filed by the Parent on July 2, 2021. No written response was provided by the Respondent, the New York City Department of Education (hereinafter “DOE”, “District” or “Respondent”). A hearing was held in this matter on February 15, 2022 and April 11, 2022. It was a closed hearing and the Petitioners were represented by [REDACTED]. The Respondent was represented by [REDACTED]. The record was closed on May 2, 2022.

In the due process complaint, the Parent requested tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement of the student at [REDACTED] (“[REDACTED]”) covering the 2021-2022 school year, direct funding for the costs of at-home related services and for the District to provide transportation for the Student to and from [REDACTED] for the entirety of the 2021-2022 school year.

JURISDICTION

The due process hearing was held, and a decision in this matter is being rendered pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (hereinafter “IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 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. § Part 200.

BACKGROUND

Student was a [REDACTED]-year-old student entering the 2021-2022 school year mandated for a 12-month school year who has been classified as a student with Multiple Disabilities. The circumstances which gave rise to the current due process complaint involved the alleged failure of the CSE to develop an appropriate IEP for the Student, the CSE’s failure to request any appropriate evaluations for the Student and the CSE’s failure to recommend an appropriate program for the Student for the 2021-2022 school year.

ISSUES

  • • Whether Student was denied a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year by the failure of the CSE to request updated evaluations for the Student, by failing to develop an appropriate IEP for the Student for the 2021-2022 school year and by failing to recommend or provide Student an appropriate placement.
  • • Whether the Parent’s unilateral placement of the Student for the 2021-2022 school year was appropriate to the Student’s needs.
  • • Whether the equities favor reimbursement for the 2021-2022 school year.
  • • Whether the Student is entitled to direct funding for at-home related services.
  • • Petitioner requests relief in the form of an order that finds directs the District to fund the Student’s tuition at [REDACTED] for the entirety of the 2021-2022 school year. The Parent also seeks relief in an order directing the District to provide transportation to the Student to and from [REDACTED] as well as an order directing the District to directly fund the Student’s at-home related services.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED AT HEARINGS

  • • DISTRICT’S CASE
  • • The District introduced no exhibits.
  • • PARENT’S CASE
  • • The Parent introduced twenty (20) exhibits into evidence which included the following:
  • • P-A: DPC
  • • P-B: TDN
  • • P-C: Enrollment Contract
  • • P-D: Tuition Affidavit
  • • P-E: Program Description
  • • P-F: Class Schedule
  • • P-G: Attendance Record
  • • P-H: FOFD
  • • P-I: Order of Pendency
  • • P-J: IEP
  • • P-K: Neuropsychological Report
  • • P-L: Email
  • • P-M: Letter re Enhanced Rate
  • • P-N: Email
  • • P-O: Parent Affidavit
  • • P-P: School Representative Affidavit
  • • P-Q: Provider Affidavit
  • • P-R: Provider Affidavit
  • • P-S: Provider Affidavit
  • • WITNESSES
  • • The District presented no witnesses.
  • • The parent presented five witnesses, [REDACTED], an occupational therapist, [REDACTED], a physical therapist, [REDACTED], BCBA, [REDACTED], Principal at [REDACTED], the Parent. In lieu of direct examination, Parent submitted affidavits of the witnesses.[2] The District was given an opportunity to cross-examine each of the witnesses.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  • • After considering all of the evidence, as well as arguments of both sides, this Hearing Officer’s Findings of Fact are as follows:
  • • Student is a [REDACTED]-year-old student who has been attending [REDACTED] during the 2021-2022 school year.[3]
  • • The Student is currently classified by the District as a student with Multiple Disabilities.[4] According to the Parent, the Student “was diagnosed with [REDACTED] ("[REDACTED]"), a serious genetic disorder that inhibits functioning of the nervous system, when she was a month and a half old and had a [REDACTED] when she was three months old and a [REDACTED] placed by late 2018 since she was not growing or eating enough.”[5] Although the Parent describes the Student as happy, sociable and expressive, the Parent also indicated that the Student is held back by various physical disorders which also impair her speech.[6]
  • • The Parent attended an IEP meeting in August 2021 for the purpose of developing an IEP for the Student for the 2021-2022 school year.[7] At that meeting, the Parent conveyed her concerns regarding the physical therapy the Student required.[8]
  • • In any event, on June 21, 2021, the Parent had sent the District a Ten-Day Notice to the District indicating that the Parent was rejecting the proposed placement for the Student as the school could not implement the IEP and/or was completely inappropriate for the Student.[9] It is noteworthy that the District made no attempt whatsoever either by documents, evidence or argument to defend the proposed program. In fact, in the District’s closing papers, the District indicated that it “takes no position” on the Parent’s request for tuition reimbursement.
  • • Based on the failure of the District to present evidence or witnesses at the hearing of this matter, I am constrained to conclude that the District has conceded Prong I of this case. Having failed to offer any evidence whatsoever, and, in particular, a witness who could testify as to the appropriateness of any proposed placement, I find that the District has conceded that it did not conduct an appropriate review, that it failed to conduct relevant evaluations, failed to develop an appropriate IEP, and/or did not offer the Student an appropriate placement for the 2021-2022 school year. As a result, there can be little question that the Student was denied a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year.
  • • Student was then enrolled in [REDACTED] for the 2021-2022 school year.[10]
  • • The Parent submitted documentation and offered testimony, by way of affidavits, which reflected that the Student did well at [REDACTED].[11]
  • • The Parent also submitted ample documentation which demonstrated that [REDACTED] was an appropriate placement for the Student.[12] In addition, Parent submitted an affidavit of [REDACTED], the Principal at [REDACTED], which set forth, in extensive detail, the many ways in which [REDACTED] created a program which was specifically tailored to address the Student’s unique needs.[13] The District did not challenge any of this evidence. As a result, there was no evidence presented that [REDACTED] was not an appropriate school for the Student.
  • • For the 2021-2022 school year, Parent provided documentation that verified that Parents contractually obligated themselves to pay the cost of tuition and related services of [REDACTED] which totaled one hundred seventeen thousand dollars ($117,000.00).[14]
  • • [REDACTED] was an appropriate placement for Student for the 2021-2022 school year. The small class sizes allowed her to get more individualized attention and support from her teachers.[15] In addition, all of the Student’s related services are received at [REDACTED].[16] In addition, Student has access to numerous individual and small group sessions where she receives additional support from teachers within the school.[17]
  • • On the other hand, while the District offered no documentary or testimonial evidence regarding the extensive at-home services the Student received and continues to receive, the District argued, in its closing briefs, that the services rendered by the at-home related service providers were either duplicative or unnecessary to permit the Student to realize a meaningful benefit of her education. That claim was completely belied by the uncontroverted statements by both related service providers that without their continuous intervention that the Student would certainly suffer regression.[18] Based on this uncontroverted testimony, I find that the Parent met their burden to demonstrate that these services were both appropriate and specifically targeted to address the Student’s unique needs.
  • • As to the SEIT services, the provider indicated that the Student required seven (7) hours per week, over the course of a 12-month school year, which was billed at the rate of $175.00 per hour.[19] This was consistent with the recommendation in the neuropsychological report which recommended as much one-on-one support as possible.[20] The District offered no evidence to controvert any of this testimony, including the appropriateness of the rate.
  • • As to the at-home physical therapy, the Student was deemed to require five (5) hours of [REDACTED] PT per week, over the course of a 12-month school year, which was billed at $400 per hour.[21] The District offered no evidence to controvert any of this testimony, including the appropriateness of the rate.
  • • Alternatively, the District argued that the Parent had failed to demonstrate that they were under a contractual obligation to pay for those services.
  • • Unlike with the Parent’s claim for tuition reimbursement, it is beyond dispute that the Parent did not, in fact, submit any proof that the Parent was contractually obligated to pay any of the service providers that rendered at-home services to the Student. In fact, while the affidavits of the providers themselves reflect what their rates are, as well as how much they believe they are owed at the present time, they are silent as to what arrangements for payments, if any, were made with the Parent.[22] At the same time, the Parent’s affidavit makes no reference to any obligation she has to pay for the services, only that she could not afford to do so.[23]
  • • Nevertheless, it is also clear that the District, by virtue of the pendency agreement it signed, obligated itself, on October 13, 2021, to pay for the Student’s services during the pendency of this matter.[24] However, that obligation by its very terms, does not extend beyond the pendency period. In the absence of any additional evidence, I am constrained to find that the Parent did not meet their burden to demonstrate that the Parent was under a contractual obligation to pay for the related services the Student received.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISCUSSION

Denial of FAPE

  • • The purpose of the IDEA is “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs.” Bd. Of Educ. V. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-91 (1982). Implicit in the congressional purpose of providing access to a free and appropriate public education (hereinafter “FAPE”) is the requirement that the education to which access is provided be sufficient to confer some educational benefit upon the handicap child. (Id.)
  • • Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §1401(9) and 34 C.F.R. §300.17 FAPE is defined as follows:
  • • Special Education and related services that are provided at public expense under public supervision and direction and without charge; meet the standards of the SEA… include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and are provided in conformity with the individualized education program (IEP).
  • • In deciding whether the Respondent provided a student with a FAPE, the inquiry is typically: (1) whether the Respondent complied with the procedures set forth in IDEA; and (2) whether the student’s IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit (Rowley, supra.). Under the second prong, a school district need not maximize the potential of child but must open the door of public education in a meaningful way, and the IEP must provide the opportunity for more than only a “trivial advancement” P. v. Newington Bd. Of Educ., 546 F.3d. 111 (2nd Cir. 2008).
  • • The IEP is “the centerpiece of the statute’s education delivery system for disabled children” Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988). An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs, establishes annual goals related to those needs, and provides appropriate specialized instruction and related services. See 34 C.F.R. §300.320 (a). For an IEP to be “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits,” it must be “likely to produce progress, not regression” Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 (2d Cir. 1998).
  • • Additionally, each public agency must ensure that, as soon as possible following the development of an IEP, special education and related services are made available to the child in accordance with the child’s IEP. In order to implement the IEP, a team that includes the child's parents determines where the child should be placed based on the child's IEP. Thus, the placement should not dictate the IEP but rather the IEP determines whether a placement is appropriate. Rourke v. District of Columbia, 460 F.Supp.2d 32, 44 (D.D.C. 2006).
  • • The DOE must ensure that the IEP team reviews a student’s IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved. Moreover, the DOE must ensure that the IEP team revises the IEP, as appropriate, to address any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals; and the results of any reevaluation or information about the child provided to, or by, the parents. Additionally, if the parent obtains an independent educational evaluation (“IEE”) at public expense, or shares with the public agency an evaluation obtained at private expense, the school district must consider the results of the evaluation, if it meets agency criteria, in any decision made with respect to the provision of FAPE to the child. The IDEA mandates that an IEP be based on the results of the most recent evaluation of a student.
  • • In determining the appropriate placement for a child, preference is given to the least restrictive environment and the appropriate schools nearest the child's home (Id.). The IDEA requires that unless the IEP of a child with a disability requires some other arrangement, the child is to be educated in the school that he or she would attend if the student was otherwise not disabled. In selecting the least restrictive environment, consideration is given to any potential harmful effect on the child or on the quality of the services that he or she needs. A child with a disability is not removed from education in age appropriate regular classrooms solely because of needed modifications in the general education curriculum. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.116.
  • • When developing the IEP, the District will have evaluations of the child, as a procedural safeguard the parents are entitled, as a matter of law, an independent education evaluation (IEE) at public expense. 34 CFR § 300.502
  • • Where a school system fails to provide special education or related services to a student with a disability, the student is entitled to compensatory education, “i.e., replacement of educational services the child should have received in the first place.” Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2005). An award of compensatory education “should aim to place the disabled children in the same position they would have occupied but for the school district’s violations of IDEA” (Id.). Compensatory education is a remedy for “past deficiencies” therefore a finding as to whether a student was “denied a FAPE in the relevant time period is a necessary prerequisite to a compensatory education award.” Peak v. District of Columbia, 526 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
  • • Pursuant to New York Education Law § 4401(c)(1) the DOE shall have the burden of proof, the burden of persuasion, and the burden of production in impartial hearings except for instances where the parent is seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral parental placement and in those cases the parent shall have the burden of persuasion and the burden of production as to the appropriateness of the placement. The burden of proof in matters such as this shall only be met upon a fair preponderance of the evidence. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the trier of fact to find that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence. Concrete Pipe & Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993).
  • • Unlike other standards of proof, the preponderance-of-evidence standard allows both parties to share the risk of error in a roughly equal fashion, except that when the evidence is evenly balanced, the party with the burden of persuasion must lose. Director, Office of Worker’s Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267, 281 (1994).
  • • In the instant matter, the District presented no evidence or witnesses whatsoever that indicated that it had provided Student with a FAPE. Similarly, they proffered no arguments that they had done so. In fact, in the District’s closing brief, the District did not dispute that the District had not provided the Student with a FAPE. Moreover, the evidence is quite clear that Respondent failed to make a recommendation for an appropriate program for Student for the 2021-2022 school year. As a result, there can be little question that the Student was denied a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year.
  • • Moreover, in assessing the propriety of the family’s effort to rectify the district’s failing, the decision-maker must take into account the limited range of options available to the family, the degree to which they possessed technical/professional educational expertise, the urgency of the placement timetable, and their natural desire to maximize the student’s potential. The family is under no obligation to seek out a program that skirts just barely above the Endrew minimum, and the district that comes to the table with unclean hands is not in a strong position to argue that, notwithstanding its own derogation of duty, the family should be barred from seeking to remedy the deprivation of FAPE because the program they initiated was too good. One of the fundamental tenets of equity jurisdiction is that ‘he that hath committed iniquity shall not have equity.’ Reimbursement for Unilateral Placement
  • • A court or a hearing officer may order a district to reimburse the parents of a student with a disability for the student’s unilateral private placement if the district failed to make a FAPE available in a timely manner and the unilateral private placement is appropriate, 34 CFR 300, 148 (c); Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 20 IDELR 532 (US 1993). Parents seeking tuition reimbursement as a remedy cannot simply speculate that the assigned school will fail to provide one or more services the student needs to receive FAPE; they must show that the school is not capable of implementing the student’s IEP, M.O. and G.O. v. New York City Department of Education, 65 IDELR 283 (2nd Cir. 2015); Y.F. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 68 IDELR 92 (2d Cir. 2016, unpublished).
  • • It is true that a unilateral private placement does not need to meet state standards for public education programs to be “appropriate” for reimbursement services, 34 CFR 200.148 (c). However, a unilateral private placement is appropriate for reimbursement purposes if it offers instruction that is specially designed to meet the student’s unique needs as well as the support services the student requires to benefit from that instruction, M.N. v. State of Hawaii, Dep’t of Educ., 60 IELR 181 (9th ir. 2013, unpublished); Ward v. Board of Education of the Enlarged City Sch. Dist. Of Middletown, NY, 63 IDELR 121 (2d Cir. 2014, unpublished).
  • • In the instant matter, there was a clear demonstration that the unilateral placement chosen by the Parent was appropriate. Specifically, the evidence demonstrated that [REDACTED] engaged Student in classes, programs and related services which were specifically tailored to address Student’s needs and challenges. Student was provided with numerous accommodations and afforded the opportunity to engage in both individual and small group instruction, and related services providers that collaborated with his classroom teacher. Over the course of the 2021-2022 school year, Student demonstrated consistent progress across a broad array of subjects and areas of disability and continued to show marked personal growth. Once again, the District did not dispute any of these claims and stated that the District took “no position” as to the Parent’s claim for tuition reimbursement.
  • • It is for this reason that I find that the District is directed to fund the cost of the Student’s 2021-2022 placement at [REDACTED] in the amount of $117,000.00, inclusive of the related services provided at the unilateral placement.

Equities

  • • Pursuant to 20 U.S.C.A. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii), the cost of reimbursement described in clause (ii) may be reduced or denied if:
  • • (I)(aa) at the most recent IEP meeting that the parents attended prior to removal of the child from the public school, the parents did not inform the IEP Team that they were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide a free appropriate public education to their child, including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in a private school at public expense; or
  • • (bb) 10 business days (including any holidays that occur on a business day) prior to the removal of the child from the public school, the parents did not give written notice to the public agency of the information described in item (aa);
  • • (II) if, prior to the parents' removal of the child from the public school, the public agency informed the parents, through the notice requirements described in  of this title, of its intent to evaluate the child (including a statement of the purpose of the evaluation that was appropriate and reasonable), but the parents did not make the child available for such evaluation; or
  • • (III) upon a judicial finding of unreasonableness with respect to actions taken by the parents.
  • • Here, the Respondent offered no evidence or argument on the subject of the equities. I
  • • therefore find that the District has conceded the that there are, in fact, no equitable considerations which would mitigate against full reimbursement. In addition, a review of the evidence in the record reveals that no such equitable considerations exist.

Related Services

  • • As discussed above, it is clear from the evidence submitted by the Parent that the at-home related services the Student received were both appropriate and reasonably targeted to address the Student’s needs beyond the services the Student received in the unilateral placement. This included the Student’s right to transportation which the IEP mandated.
  • • However, as the District correctly points out, in situations in which a Parent seeks direct funding of related services, the courts have held that it is incumbent upon the Parent to demonstrate that they had a contractual obligation to pay for those services. E.M. v. New York City Dept. of Education, 758 F.3d. 442 (2nd Cir. 2014). When the Parent fails to come forward with that evidence, “it is not appropriate equitable relief” to require the District to directly fund those services. Appeal No. 21-025; see also, Appeal No. 20-099.
  • • In the instant matter, while the Parent definitively demonstrated that the services were appropriate, the Parent came forward with no evidence whatsoever that the Parent was contractually obligated to pay for the Student’s at-home related services. There was no copy of a contract signed by the Parent as to either related services provider. There were no copies of invoices indicating an amount due and owing that the Parent was responsible for from either related service provider. Finally, there was no mention in either of the affidavits from the related service providers that the Parent was contractually or otherwise obligated to pay for their services. Even the Parent’s affidavit is silent on this subject. In fact, the Parent’s affidavit simply stated that she was unable to afford to pay for the services by herself. However, the evidence submitted on the Parent’s ability to pay for the related services is, at best, inconclusive. In any event, whether the Parent can or cannot afford those services, there is simply no evidentiary basis to warrant an award directing the District to directly fund those services.
  • • ORDER:
  • • Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and all evidence before the IHO, it is hereby ORDERED that:
  • • That the New York City Department of Education is directed to place the Student at [REDACTED] for the 2021-2022 school year;
  • • That the New York City Department of Education is directed to fund the cost of the Student’s 2021-2022 placement at [REDACTED], inclusive of related services costs, in the amount of $117,000.00;
  • • All payments shall be made directly to the non-public, unilateral placement upon a showing by the Parent that tuition has not been paid out-of-pocket by the Parent. If the Parent can show that out-of-pocket payment to the placement was made by the Parent, then the Parent shall be reimbursed by the District;
  • • The District is also directed to provide transportation for the Student to and from [REDACTED] for the entirety of the 2021-2022 school year;
  • • The District is further ordered to conduct evaluations of the Student in all areas of suspected disability and, upon completion of the evaluations to reconvene, giving reasonable notice to the Parent, to conduct an IEP meeting to determine what, if any, modifications need to be made to the Student’s IEP/IESP.
  • • The district must immediately upon receipt, enter this order on a system that is used to keep track of such orders.
  • • All other relief requested by the Parent’s, including a request for an order directing the District to directly fund the Student’s at-home related services (other than during the pendency period), is denied.
  • • SO ORDERED:
  • • Dated: May 14, 2022
  • • _Steven P. Forbes____________
  • • Steven P. Forbes
  • • Impartial Hearing Officer
  • • 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 the parent plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally served upon the school district not less than 10 days before the service of a copy of the petition for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed so that a certified copy of the hearing record may be prepared for submission by the school district. If a school district plans to appeal the decision the district shall file a certified copy of the hearing record together with its petition.
  • • An appealing parties’ petition for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25 or 35-day period, (8 NYCRR §279.2 (b)).
  • • The rules of procedure for proceedings before an SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education available at http://ww.sro.nysed.gov.
  • • New York City Department of Education has designated the New York City Law Department to accept service of papers on its behalf, including appeals of decisions of Impartial Hearing Officers. Such service is made at 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007 at the Messenger Center.
  • • STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF NEW YORK
  • • _______________________________________________X
  • • In the Matter of a Complaint Pursuant to Part 200 of the Case No.: 210010
  • • Regulations of the Commissioner of Education Regarding,
  • • STUDENT, a minor, by and through his/her
  • • Parent(s),
  • • Petitioners
  • • -against-
  • • NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
  • • Respondent.
  • • ________________________________________________X
  • • CERTIFICATION OF RECORD
  • • The record before me as the Hearing Officer in this matter consists of the following:
  • • Administrative Due Process Complaint dated July 2, 2021.
  • • Notice of Hearing and Appointment dated December 17, 2021.
  • • Parent’s Exhibits A-S totaling one hundred thirty-one (131) pages.
  • • The written transcript of the hearing totaling sixty-four (64) pages.
  • • Findings of Fact and Decision dated May 14, 2022.
  • • I, Steven P. Forbes, the Hearing Officer in this matter, do hereby certify that the attached record is accurate and encompasses the entire record in the above-entitled matter as of this date.
  • • I further certify that the materials forwarded herewith are the original or a true copy of the original documents and/or other tangible items that constitute the record in this matter.
  • • EXECUTED this 14th day of May, 2022.
  • • __Steven P. Forbes_______
  • • STEVEN P. FORBES
  • • Impartial Hearing Officer

Footnotes

[1] Personally, identifiable information is attached as a cover sheet to this decision and must be removed prior to public distribution.

[2] P-O; P-P; P-Q; P-R; and P-S.

[3] P-G.

[4] P-J.

[5] P-O, page 1.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] P-B.

[10] P-C.

[11] P-O; P-P; P-S.

[12] P-E; P-F.

[13] P-P.

[14] P-C; P-D.

[15] P-P.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] P-Q, page 2; P-R, page 2.

[19] P-Q.

[20] P-K.

[21] P-R.

[22] P-Q; P-R

[23] P-O, page 4.

[24] P-I.