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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
Name Title For Date
[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 07/05/22 (V)
[REDACTED] DOE Representative DISTRICT 07/05/22 (V)
[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 09/06/22 (V)
[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 10/12/22 (V)
[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 12/20/22 (V)
[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 01/31/23 (V)
[REDACTED] DOE Representative DISTRICT 01/31/23 (V)
[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 02/09/23 (V)
[REDACTED] DOE Representative DISTRICT 02/09/23 (V)
[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 03/27/23 (V)
[REDACTED] DOE Representative DISTRICT 03/27/23 (V)
[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 05/23/23 (V)
[REDACTED] Parent PARENT 05/23/23 (V)
[REDACTED] Witness PARENT 05/23/23 (V)
[REDACTED] DOE Representative DISTRICT 05/23/23 (V)
[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 06/13/23 (V)
[REDACTED] Parent PARENT 06/13/23 (V)
[REDACTED] Witness PARENT 06/13/23 (V)
[REDACTED] Witness PARENT 06/13/23 (V)
[REDACTED] DOE Representative DISTRICT 06/13/23 (V)
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD
A. Number/Letter Title Dated For # of Pages IEP 04/28/20 PARENT 20 pages
B. IEP 04/19/21 PARENT 21 pages
C. IEP 05/27/22 PARENT 21 pages
D. Speech-Language Report 06/10/22 PARENT 23 pages
E. Neuropsychological Report 08/30/22 PARENT 20 pages
F. Due Process Complaint 10/07/22 PARENT 09 pages
G. [REDACTED] Affidavit 02/10/23 PARENT 10 pages
H. Speech-Language Affidavit 02/22/23 PARENT 11 pages
I. Due Process Complaint 03/23/22 PARENT 04 pages
J. [REDACTED] Affidavit 04/19/23 PARENT 02 pages
1. Prior Written Notice 04/08/22 DOE 04 pages DOE
2. Prior Written Notice 07/01/20 DOE 04 pages DOE
On. June 03, 2022, 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. After having adjournments granted at the request of and with the consent of the parties, or for good cause on the following dates, July 05, 2022, September 06, 2022, October 12, 2022, December 01, 2022, December 20, 2022, January 31, 2023, February 9, 2023 and March 27, 2023, the impartial hearing was held on May 23, 2023 and June 13, 2023. A list of 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 student's Parent's counsel, on or about March 23, 2022, and carried under New York City ("NYC") Case No. 225356. The Parent herein alleges that the student was denied a "free and appropriate public education" ("FAPE") for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years in that the parent alleges that the DOE generally failed to assess the child in all areas of his suspected disability. The Parents allege that the CSE failed to conduct a proper review for the student and make appropriate recommendations for their educational planning and that the student's IEP was procedurally and substantively flawed and denied the student a FAPE for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school year. DOE
On. or about March 10, 2022, the Parent requested an Independent Evaluation. The DOE never responded to Parents request.. At the impartial hearing, the Parent seeks the following relief: (a) An award of 207 hours of compensatory education services of speech language therapy at market rate. (b) 30 hours of Parent counseling and training 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 May 23, 2023 and June 13, 2023, and this decision being made not on the basis of the submission of testamentary and documentary evidence pursuant to 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][3][xii][f],and The DOE did not call any witnesses to testify on its behalf and submitted (2) documents in evidence. In sum, substance and relevant part, the testamentary and documentary evidence for and against the DOE's case is incorporated in the decision below. THE PARENT'S CASE The Parent had (2) witness testify on their behalf, who testified at the hearing. On the hearing date, the DOE crossed both affiants. The Parent also submitted (10) documents in evidence. In sum, substance and relevant part, the testamentary and documentary evidence for and against the Parent's case is incorporated in the decision below. DOES' DEFAULT The DOE has the burden of production and persuasion at an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of production and persuasion regarding the appropriateness of such placement. (See Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]) Here, the DOE did not proffer any testamentary evidence that it has offered the student a FAPE. (Supra) This amounts to a concession that the agency did not offer the student a FAPE. Additionally, the District did not present any witnesses to defend their case. The District was given an opportunity to have their witness appear and testify and the witness failed to appear. (T-45-46) It would be fundamentally unfair to allow either party to rely solely on the submission of documents in meeting its burden under law, where those documents are filled with double, triple and even unidentified hearsay sources, that cannot be cross examined. While compliance with technical rules of evidence is not required in administrative hearings, under certain circumstances, the receipt of hearsay evidence may be so prejudicial as to have a tendency to deprive a party of fair hearing. (See Strain v. Sarafan, 57 A.D.2d 525, 393 N.Y.S.2d 572, N.Y.A.D. (1977), where the hearsay testimony was of vital importance and should have been subjected to cross-examination by the petitioner…the petitioner was deprived of a meaningful hearing, Dukes v. New York City Housing Authority, 63 A.D.2d 690, 404 N.Y.S.2d 889, N.Y.A.D. (1978), holding that the excessive reliance on hearsay evidence effectively denied petitioner the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses, Claim of Evans, 254 A.D.2d 564, 678 N.Y.S.2d 696, N.Y.A.D. (3 Dept. 1998), (where in an unemployment compensation proceedings, administrative l[2nd PRIVATE SCHOOL INITIALS] judge ('ALJ") properly exercised discretion to exclude hearsay evidence to protect employer's fundamental right of cross-examination, where claimant proffered written hearsay statement, authored by acquaintance of the employer's president, which allegedly indicated that claimant did not resign but was fired, but the acquaintance failed to answer subpoena directing him to testify at hearing, thereby denying employer the opportunity to cross-examine him on the statement, and Alvarado v. State of New York, 110 A.D.2d 583, 488 N.Y.S.2d 177 (1st Dept. 1985), holding that a license suspension hearing against a boxer and his managers was faulty because of a lack of an opportunity "to cross-examine certain witnesses whose reports were introduced into evidence without their testifying, in violation of SAPA Section 306, subd. (3)." (Id. at 585, 488 N.Y.S.2d at 179) The DOE did not present a case-in-chief and did not controvert the documentary evidence submitted by the Parent. (Supra) The credibility of the documentary evidence was not rebutted by either party and the documentary evidence is clearly relevant and material to the issues to be determined. I find the documentary evidence submitted by the parent to be credible and uncontroverted in this case. I find the parent's testamentary evidence to be credible and uncontroverted in this case. As noted above, the DOE's failure to present a case at the hearing is a concession that it denied the student a FAPE and that if the Parent meets her burden under Schaffer v. Weast, the Parent is entitled to the proven relief she seeks. This leaves, as the primary issue to be resolved through impartial hearing, what relief and/or compensatory education remedy, if any, is available and appropriate to remediate the denial of a FAPE. (SRO No. 17-033) It is noted that the DOE was required under the due process procedures set forth in New York State law, to address its burdens in the due process hearing context by describing its views, based on a fact-specific inquiry set forth in an evidentiary record, regarding an appropriate relief and/or compensatory education remedy that most reasonably and efficiently could place the student in the position that he would have been but for the denial of a FAPE. (See Doe v. E. Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440, 457 [2d Cir. 2015], cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2022 [2016], quoting Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, F.3d 516, 524 [D.C. Cir. 2005] [noting that the "'ultimate award [of compensatory education] must be reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from special education services the school district should have supplied in the first place'"]) When, as here, the DOE does not present any case at the 401 pages
at. hearing, the hearing, the hearing process essentially becomes an "inquest" as to the appropriate relief. The DOE has conceded liability by failing to present a case and meet its burden under the law. New York State law has placed the burden of production and persuasion an impartial hearing on the school district, unlike states which align the burden of production and persuasion consistent with Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 58-62 [2005} The undersigned finds that the DOE failed to adhere to the requirements of the law, has denied the student in this case a FAPE for the 2020-2021 and and that the Parent may be entitled to the proven relief she has requested. COMPENSATORY SERVICES There is a request for compensatory educational services in this case and an IHO cannot determine the amount of compensatory education that a student requires unless the record provides them with sufficient "insight about the precise types of education services the student needs to progress." (Mary McLeod Bethune Day Acad. Pub. Charter Sch., 555 F. Supp. 2d 130, 50 IDELR 134 [D.D.C. 2008] citing Branham v. District of Columbia, 427 F.3d 2021-2022 school year 7, 44 IDELR 149 [D.C. Cir. 2005]) Pertinent findings to enable an IHO to tailor the ultimate award to the student's unique needs should include the nature and severity of the student's disability, the student's specialized educational needs, the link between those needs and the services requested, and the student's current educational abilities. (See Branham v. District of Columbia, 427 F.3d 7, 44 IDELR 149 [D.C. Cir. 2005], see also Mary McLeod Bethune Day Acad. Pub. Charter Sch., 555 F. Supp. 2d 130, 50 IDELR 134 [D.D.C. 2008]) The Parent has the burden of "propos[ing] a well-articulated plan that reflects the student's current education abilities and needs and is supported by the record." (See Phillips v. District of Columbia, 2010 WL 3563068, at *6, 55 IDELR 101 [D.D.C. Sept. 13, 2010] quoting Friendship Edison Pub. Charter Sch. Collegiate Campus v. Nesbitt ("Nesbitt II"), 583 F. Supp. 2d 169, 172, 51 IDELR 125 [D.D.C. 2008])
State regulations provide in relevant part that "[t]he decision of the impartial hearing officer shall be based solely upon the record of the proceeding before the impartial hearing officer and shall set forth the reasons and the factual basis for the determination. (See 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5][v])
Shaffer decision of the Supreme Court of the United States issued on November 14, 2005, held as follows:
"We hold no more than we must to resolve the case at hand: The burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief. In this case, that party is [REDACTED], as represented by his parents. But the rule applies with equal effect to school districts: If they seek to challenge an IEP, they will in turn bear the burden of persuasion before an ALJ.
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is, therefore affirmed." (Supra, III, ¶2) (See Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 58-
62 [2005] (emphasis added)
In sum, substance and relevant part, the testamentary and documentary evidence in this case indicates the following:
After not presenting a case-in-chief and the DOE failing to proffer any witnesses. The Parent's witness, [REDACTED] testified on direct via affidavit as follows about the student's disabilities and diagnosis. 1. At the time of my evaluation, July 8 and 15, [REDACTED] was a [REDACTED]year [REDACTED]-month old boy diagnosed with Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Background history was acquired via parent`s report and review of relevant records. [REDACTED] was referred for the evaluation due to his increased social and academic withdrawal during the last two years. At the time of the evaluation, [REDACTED] had been learning remotely since January 2022 due to water damages at his school, which had a significant negative impact on his overall level of motivation. 2. [REDACTED] presents with many features of ASD. In particular, he presents with self-directedness, sensory sensitivities, difficulty engaging in non-preferred tasks, and trouble regulating his attention, emotions, and behavior. [REDACTED] also presents with significant deficits regarding his ability to socialize and to develop positive relationships with others. He has trouble navigating peer relationships with a tendency toward avoidance. He had a history of being bullied when he was younger and of immature social behavior such as carrying a stuffed animal around school. He does not present with many stereotypical behaviors that are often present in Autism including rocking, hand-flapping, or echolalia. Additionally, he tends to focus on topics of interest, but he can have conversations about a wide variety of topics. [REDACTED] also presents with some sensory hypersensitivities, with triggers including loud noises and certain tactile stimuli like tags in clothing. Thus, based on his developmental history, his pattern of performance on testing and his current presentation, [REDACTED] continues to meet criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder. 3. Academically, [REDACTED] presents with significant deficits and gaps in his knowledge of math facts and procedures. His basic number sense is intact, as is his ability to perform mental math and calculations. Nonetheless, [REDACTED] as challenges with Math word problems and math concepts, and he has large gaps in his knowledge and ability. As a result of these delays, [REDACTED] also meets criteria for a specific learning disability in the area of mathematics (Specific Learning Disorder with Impairment in Mathematics). Given the magnitude of [REDACTED] deficits and his graphomotor challenges, he should be allowed to use a calculator for all mathematical tasks during class and exams. 4. [REDACTED] also presents with significant levels of Anxiety and Depression that have a significant negative impact on his daily functioning. In particular, he presents with excessive levels of worrying and avoidance of challenging and nonpreferred tasks. Notably, [REDACTED] was unable to talk about his emotions during the assessment, however he has demonstrated increasing difficulty meeting academic and social demands. He has also been avoiding social interaction and prefers to stay at home. Moreover, [REDACTED] ability to focus and his tendency to have meltdowns in response to frustration has worsened. [REDACTED] socialemotional presentation is related to significant levels of stress including academic and social stress but also familial stress (i.e., parents' separation and subsequent relocation). Thus, because of this presentation, [REDACTED] also meets criteria for an Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. 5. Given [REDACTED] broad-based learning disabilities in conjunction with his Autism and co-occurring anxiety/depression, he requires specialized support to access learning. [REDACTED] has the capacity for learning, however, given the magnitude of his academic delays and social-emotional barriers to learning, [REDACTED] continues to require specialized instruction and significantly more time than his peers to access learning. To be successful, he requires placement in a school that provides access to academic instruction, hands-on learning, and socialemotional development within a therapeutic setting. More specifically, he requires placement in a school that is designed for college-bound students with learning differences that can provide individualized academic support and access to therapeutic services. As such, he requires placement in a private specialized or nonpublic school that is staffed with teachers who have experience with learning disabilities. Moreover, he requires a placement with classmates who do not present with externalizing behaviors as he is unable to learn in such an environment given his significant levels of anxiety. 6. Despite his Average intellectual functioning, [REDACTED] presents with significant gaps and delays in his adaptive skills. He requires support to learn how to navigate the city independently, as well as with other life skills such as financial literacy. He requires focused support in these areas moving forward. 7. Going forward, [REDACTED] will require support to navigate the college application process and for vocational counseling. [REDACTED] requires help to determine which field he would like to pursue, as well as the path he would need to take to reach his goals. Vocational and college counseling is required to help [REDACTED] make realistic goals and to help him create an effective plan for achieving them. 8. Given his disorder of Math and challenges with Written expression, [REDACTED] presents with significant academic delays that prevent him from accessing grade-level academic work. He requires individualized instruction in math to remediate his disabilities in these areas. 9. Given his mood and behavioral challenges, [REDACTED] continues to require Counseling Services during school. Individual counseling is important to help [REDACTED] incorporate strategies to manage his behavior and mood symptoms. Group counseling is also beneficial for helping to improve [REDACTED] social skills and perspective-taking, as well as to facilitate positive peer interactions. 10. Once the above recommendations are incorporated, [REDACTED] is recommended to undergo a repeat neuropsychological evaluation to monitor progress and to consider his academic needs at that time. (Parent's Ex-G)
The District cross examined the witness about the students specific delays and the witness testified as follows: "So [REDACTED] is in 12th grade, but his – he has significant delays in his academic functioning, especially in math, and so he met criteria for a specific learning disability in mathematics, which 1 is also known as dyscalculia. (Tr. 64-65)
The Parent's witness, [REDACTED] testified on direct via affidavit as to the need for compensatory educational services as follows,
1. I evaluated [REDACTED] on June 10, 2022. The evaluation was conducted in-person at a Workspace in Manhattan. The evaluation lasted approximately two hours. The mother provided information about [REDACTED] by completing a questionnaire prior to the evaluation and participated in an interview with the evaluator after the evaluation. This evaluator also reviewed various educational records.
2. After completion of this speech and language evaluation, it is evident that [REDACTED] presents with mild delays in receptive language and expressive language, moderate delays in metalinguistic skills, moderate-to-severe delays in writing skills, and severe delays in pragmatic (social) skills.
3. Overall, [REDACTED] exhibits delays that currently have and will continue to have a negative impact on his ability to access and understand the school curriculum. [REDACTED] delays are clinical causes for concern. According to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), an individual with a speech disorder may be at risk for difficulty communicating effectively when speaking, difficulty acquiring literacy skills, and psychosocial problems such as reduced self-esteem. One must also consider the long-term effects of delayed communication. Therefore, speech and language services are necessary to support student's progress.
4. It is recommended that speech-language therapy services be provided at a mandate of 2x/week individually for 40 minutes per session, 1x/week in a group of 3 total students for 40-minutes per session, and a social skills group 1x/week in a group of 4 total students for 40-minutes per session are recommended. Individual therapy sessions will allow [REDACTED] individualized therapeutic intervention to address his deficits. Group therapy sessions will allow [REDACTED] to generalize the skills he acquires in individual therapy sessions into a small group session. The social skills group will allow [REDACTED] to target his deficits with pragmatic (social) skills. Services should be provided on a 12-month basis to avoid regression. Should the individual school be unable to accommodate this provision of service, this service should then be funded to take place after school in the home or an outpatient setting.
5. I recommend compensatory services in the form of a bank of 207 speech and language hours (providing [REDACTED] with approximately 1.5 hours a week for 46 weeks, for approximately 3 years). These hours will give [REDACTED] consistent access to therapeutic intervention that will address his significant deficits. Providing these services will allow [REDACTED] to have the opportunity to address his specific needs in a consistent manner. [REDACTED] needs therapy to establish the foundational language skills he needs. [REDACTED] has not received speech-language therapy in the past and prior interventions were not sufficient enough for him to make meaningful progress. This recommended amount was derived from a qualitative clinical approach, considering [REDACTED] current needs and the time he will need to "catch up" to make him whole given the insufficient mandates he has received in the past. Unfortunately, without a robust clinical program, his current gaps will continue to widen. It is recommended that these hours shall not have an expiration date, to allow access to them over time.
6. Since [REDACTED] has an assistive technology device that was provided to him by his school but has not had an updated evaluation in more than 2 years, an updated assistive technology evaluation is recommended to ensure that the applications/devices used are appropriate for [REDACTED] current skills and areas of support.
7. I recommend that the Department of Education recommend the specific, challenging, and measurable speech-language therapy goals, as listed in my speech-language evaluation report.
8. I reviewed [REDACTED] April 2020 IEP. Based on a review of prior records and my evaluation, I believe the IEP is not appropriate. He was not provided any speech-language services despite reports that he requires increased time for reading comprehension and difficulties with grammar, punctuation, and capitalizations in written language as well as overall academic performance being labeled as "behind," as noted in this IEP. Furthermore, this IEP states that [REDACTED] requires classroom instructions "to be explained to just him separately," "he becomes very frustrated when transitioning into new topics," "when given instructions [REDACTED] often needs them to be repeated and redirected in class," and he has difficulties in the areas of pragmatic language skills. All of these are indicative of a language delay, thus, a speech-language evaluation would have been warranted.
9. I reviewed [REDACTED] April 2021 IEP. Based on a review of prior records and my evaluation, I believe the IEP is not appropriate. [REDACTED] was still not provided with speech-language therapy despite further reports in this IEP of requiring his memory to be "refreshed," "needs to practice paraphrasing without reading directly from the text," "does not verbally ask for help," "needs to practice organizing his thoughts when writing," "needs to practice finding supporting evidence within the passage," needs prompting to state literacy devices used, does not "use proper grammar in his response," needs "to be reminded to take his time, capitalize, punctuate, and write in complete sentences," he struggles with "expressing his feelings," and "he is not able to engage much with his peers." For all of these reasons noted in his IEP, a speech-language evaluation would have been warranted.
10. I reviewed [REDACTED] May 2022 IEP. Based on a review of prior records and my evaluation, I believe the IEP is not appropriate. Despite delays in the past, a speech-language evaluation was not conducted and speech-language therapy was not provided. [REDACTED] has clear language deficits that would be evident in the classroom across a variety of subjects including but not limited to pragmatic skills (which have been reported in the prior two IEPs), receptive vocabulary skills, expressive syntax and vocabulary skills, understanding a bulk of information presented orally, written language skills, and metalinguistic skills including conversational skills, multiple meaning words, and figurative language skills as well as narrative generation skills. These deficits are clearly evident during the following academic tasks: using appropriate vocabulary and grammar to form meaningful sentences; editing text; remembering information presented orally or in writing; forming meaningful relationships with adults and peers; participating in receptive and expressive literacy tasks; changing a conversational topic appropriately; making wants/needs/intentions/and thoughts known appropriately and without shutting down; comprehending directions and conversations; identifying word and sentence ambiguities; and making inferences. Many of these academic skills have been reported to be delayed in prior IEPs, however, they were not mentioned in this IEP. (Parent's Ex. H)
On cross examination the witness was questioned on how she calculated the amount of compensatory hours that were needed for the student to progress,
"So again, and I believe I mentioned it in the affidavit and the report, it's a qualitative approach. So I used as much information as I could gather on [REDACTED] prior to the evaluation, as well as during the evaluation, to come up with the amount of hours that he needs to kind of catch up to make up for the deficit not the deficit, sorry, to make up for the therapy that he wasn't receiving in the past that he should have been receiving based on his deficits. This is 1 how I came up with the compensatory hours."
"On cross examination, the witness was asked what areas should be focused with the student for compensatory hours. The witness testified as follows, Sure. So all the areas that I tested that state below average or significantly below average, which include receptive language skills, expressive language skills, written language like literacy skills. All those areas -- multiple meanings, figurative language, any other metalinguistic or language skills where he's struggling in that he didn't receive therapy for in the past is what he should be targeting during the compensatory hours." (Tr. 76-77)
APPROPRIATENESS OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT
I now turn to the question of whether the DOE should be required to reimburse and/or pay for the private educational services and relief requested for the student, because the services offered by the DOE were inadequate or inappropriate, and the relief sought and services selected by the Parents are appropriate and equitable considerations support the Parent's claim. (Burlington, Florence and Cerra, Supra) The Parent need only demonstrate that the requested services are specially designed to meet the unique needs of the student, supported by such services as are necessary to permit her to benefit from the instruction. (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65).
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 compensatory education at an enhanced rate. (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's testamentary evidence is completely 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 DOE's default constitutes a concession of a denial of FAPE for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years and the evidence submitted by the Parent and annexed hereto supports the Parent's request for relief; and Now, therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that upon its receipt of reasonably satisfactory of services having been rendered, the NYC-DOE shall either reimburse the Parent and/or directly pay the cost for the student's compensatory services in the amount of a bank 207 hours of specialized instruction in speech and language therapy and related services at market rate, said hours to expire within 24 months of this decision:
ORDEREED that upon its receipt of reasonably satisfactory of services having been rendered, the NYC-DOE shall either reimburse the Parent and/or directly pay the cost for 30 hours of Parent counseling and training, said hours to expire within 24 months of this decision. ORDERED that within 30 days the DOE shall conduct evaluations of the student in all areas of his suspected disabilities, not identified above and not evaluated within the last two years, for his 2022-2023 school year; and it is further ORDERED that within 30 days 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 2022-2023 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.
Sharifa Milena Nasser
DATED: August 29, 2023
Queens, New York Sharifa Milena Nasser- 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 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)