New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 577474 - NYC: 229850

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Student’s Name: [REDACTED] (“Student”)

Date of Birth: [REDACTED]

School District: [REDACTED]

Hearing Requested by: [REDACTED] (“Parent(s)”)

Request Date/Date Complaint Filed: 8/16/22

Date(s) of Hearing: 3/16/23

Actual Record Closed Date: 4/29/23

Date of Decision: 5/19/23

Hearing Officer: Sebastian A. Weiss, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

MARCH 16, 2023:

For the Student:

[REDACTED]

(“Parent Counsel”)

[REDACTED], Parent (“Parent” or “Mother”)

[REDACTED] (“Residential Placement Representative”)

For the Department of Education:

None.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) on the Parent’s Due Process Complaint filed on August 18, 2022 (“DPC"). (Ex. A)^[1] The DPC concerns the Student’s special education program for the 2022-23 school year (“School Year”).

The IHO was appointed to this case on August 18, 2022. The hearing on the merits was conducted on March 16, 2023.

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 its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300 et seq., and the New York State Education Law, Educ. Law § 4404 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 8 NYCRR § 200.5 et seq.

ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS

Parent Case:

The DPC alleges that the District denied the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) by failing to appropriately evaluate the Student and failing to develop an appropriate Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) and placement for the 2022-23 school year (“School Year”). (Ex. A)

The Parents have identified [REDACTED], a residential treatment program located in [REDACTED] (“Residential Placement”), as an appropriate residential placement for the Student. The Parents seek the following relief: (Ex. A, CB) 1. An order directing the District to place the Student in a residential school such as the Residential Placement, or a similarly appropriate residential school; 2. Reimbursement of transportation expenses incurred by the Parent for the District’s failure to provide a bus paraprofessional through December 2022; 3.

Compensatory education

in the following amounts: i. 223 hours of 1:1 Applied Behavior Analysis (“ABA”); ii. 46 hours of 1:1 Occupational Therapy (“OT”) (which can be used by an ABA provider if an OT provider cannot be identified); and iii. 12 hours of Parent Counseling and Training (“PCAT”).

4. An order that until such time as the Student is placed in an appropriate residential placement, the Student’s program shall be as follows:

i. 6:1+3 program at [REDACTED], an approved NYS nonpublic school (“Current Placement”); ii. Full-time 1:1 crisis paraprofessional; iii. 1:1 speech and language therapy (“SLT”), 5 times per week, for 30-minute sessions in school (1:1 SLT 5x30); iv. 1:1 SLT 3x30 per week after-school;

v. 1:1 occupational therapy, 2 times per week, (2x30 OT after school); vi. 20 hours per week of 1:1 ABA to be provided by a provider of the Parent’s choosing; vii. An additional 5 hours per day of 1:1 ABA for any day that J.V. is unable to attend school in person; viii. One hour per week of Board Certified Behavior Analyst (“BCBA”) supervision; ix. Monthly individual parent training and counseling, for 60-minute sessions, to be provided by a provider of the parent’s choosing;

x. Counseling 3x30 per week; xi. Dynamic display speech generating device (an iPad), to be used at school and home; The Parent presented 17 documents into evidence and testimony from two witnesses. The Parent also presented a closing brief.

District Case:

The District did not appear for the hearing and did not present any evidence or witnesses.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Disability Classification indicated on the Student’s IEP is Autism, and the following diagnoses have been made:

[REDACTED]. (Ex. C-1, 2)

The Student has significant cognitive, language and adaptive delays. (C-1) He is nonverbal and uses an iPad with the application GoTalkNowPlus to communicate. (Ex. C-2) He is not capable of functioning independently and requires 1:1 support throughout the day. (C-2, I-8) The Instructional/Functional Levels set forth in the Student’s IEP for both reading and math is Kindergarten. (C-74)

The Student is prone to maladaptive behaviors including [REDACTED]. (Ex. C, D, G, I) Aggression towards others includes [REDACTED]. (Ex. C, G, I) The self-injurious behavior includes [REDACTED]. (Id) The aggressive behaviors increased during the COVID-19 pandemic due to lack of structure and routine. (C-1)

Multiple medications have been prescribed to manage the Student’s impulsivity and related behaviors. (Ex. D-7, I-2, P) The medications have side effects which the Student suffers from and require adjustment. (Id)

For the School Year, the Student was placed in a self contained classroom at [REDACTED] located in [REDACTED]. (Ex. C-1)

On August 26, 2021, a CSE meeting was held and an IEP was developed for the Student which recommended the following 12 month program and placement (“2021 IEP”): (Ex. D)

• SETSS, All Academics and ADL's, Direct Service, Group service, 12 periods per week, Separate Location Designated Area;

• 6:1+3 Special Class in an NYSED-Approved Non Public School - Day;

• Counseling Services, Individual Service, 1 time(s) per week for 30 minutes, Separate Location Designated area;

• Counseling Services, Group of 2, 1 time(s) per week for 30 minutes, Separate Location

Designated area;

• Counseling Services, Individual service, 1 time(s) per week for 30 minutes, Special Education Classroom;

• OT, Individual Service, 2 times per week for 30 minutes;

• Parent Counseling and Training, Group, once a month for 60 minutes;

• Speech Language Therapy (‘SLT”), Individual service, 5 times per week for 30 minutes, Separate Location within school building;

• SLT, Individual service, 3 times per week for 30 minutes, Separate Location Designated

Area;

• Behavior Support Para, Individual, Daily, Full Time;

• Assistive Technology Devices and/or Services: iPAD with the GoTalk Now communication application, Individual, Daily , Full time, School / Home;

In addition, the 2021 IEP recommends the following Special Transportation services:

• Adult Supervision – 1:1 Paraprofessional; • Vehicle and/or Equipment Needs – Air Conditioning; • Other Accommodations – Limited Travel Time; • Other Accommodations: Door to door, Mini bus; • Reason(s) why the student needs special transportation service and/or accommodations: [The Student] is diagnosed with ASD and presents with significant behavioral difficulties (Self-injurious behaviors, aggression and out of seat behaviors) which requires special bus accommodations;

On October 13, 2021, a Neuropsychological Evaluation of the Student was conducted. (Ex. I) The Neuropsychological Evaluation provides a description of the Student’s History, the Neuropsychologist’s behavioral observations, and the evaluation results in the areas of Intellectual, Language, Visual Motor, Academic, Attention and Executive, Adaptive, and Behavioral Functioning. (Id)

The recommendations set forth in the Neuropsychological Evaluation include the following:

• Minimum of 20 hours weekly of home-based ABA therapy; • SLT, OT and Counseling; • 1:1 paraprofessional or special educator; • Parent counseling and training; • Genetics consultation to rule out underlying genetic conditions; • Monitoring of eating habits and ongoing physical/medical development; • Ongoing monitoring of behavioral presentation is required. It is strongly recommended that the Student be brought to the nearest emergency room for psychiatric evaluation, if he exhibits any future episodes of physically aggressive or violent behavior towards his caregivers or other adults. • If the Student’s aggressive behaviors continue to worsen in severity and causes concern for his own and other’s safety, his parents should consider a residential placement; • Neuropsychological re-evaluation is recommended in approximately 2 to 3 years;

The Student receives 12 hours per week of home based Special Education Teacher Support Services-ABA services (“SETSS-ABA”). On April 20, 2022, [REDACTED] (“SETSS-ABA Provider”) issued a SETSS-ABA Progress Report. (Ex. G) The report states that the Student receives 12 hours per week of SETSS-ABA from this provider. The evidence indicates that the Student has made progress with these services. (Ex. C-4, D-5, I-3)

On June 7th, 2022, an IEP meeting was conducted (“2022 IEP Meeting”) and an IEP was developed (“2022 IEP”) which recommends the following twelve month program and services:

• SETSS, Direct Service, Group Service, 12 periods per week, Separate Location; • 6:1+3 Special Class in an NYSED-Approved Non Public School – Residential; • OT, Individual Service, 2 times per week for 30 minutes; • Parent Counseling and Training, group, monthly, 30 minutes, school location; • SLT, Individual service, 5 times per week for 30 minutes, Separate Location within the school; • SLT, Individual service, 3 times per week for 30 minutes, Separate Location; • Paraprofessional, Behavior Support, Individual service, Daily, Full Time; • iPAD with the GoTalk Now communication application, Individual, Daily, school and home.

In addition, the 2022 IEP recommends the following Special Transportation services: • Adult Supervision – 1:1 Paraprofessional; • Vehicle and/or Equipment Needs – Air Conditioning; • Other Accommodations – Limited Travel Time; • Other Accommodations: Mini Bus/Door to Door; • Reason(s) why the student needs special transportation service and/or accommodations: Autism; The Mother testified that she did not receive the 2022 IEP until January 2023, subsequent to the filing of the DPC. (Ex. P-6)

On Oct. 5, 2022, the District sent an email with a list of school referrals made by the District that were unsuccessful due to rejection (“District Email #1”). (Ex. J)

On December 2, 2022, a Findings of Fact and Decision was issued regarding a due process complaint filed by the Parent for the prior school year (“Prior FOFD”).

On Dec. 21, 2022, the Parent contacted the District by email to request that the Student’s educational packet be sent to the Residential Placement (Ex. L)

On January 12, 2023, the Parent sent a follow up email to the District regarding the Student’s candidacy at the Residential Placement. (Ex. M)

On January 31, 2023, the District responded to the Parent via email (“District Email #2”). (Ex. O)

On March 9, 2023, the SETSS-ABA Provider issued a SETSS-ABA Progress Report. (Ex. Q) The report states that the Student’s aggression towards others has been reduced but his self-injurious behavior has increased.

Witness Testimony

I. Residential Placement Representative The Parents presented the testimony of the Residential Placement Representative by affidavit. (Ex. K) The witness also appeared at the hearing for questioning. (March 16 T 125) A summary of the relevant testimony is as follows:

The Residential Placement Representative described the program offered by the Residential Placement and referred to the Program Description.

The Residential Placement Representative also testified that she spoke with the Student’s mother in mid January 2023 regarding the possibility of the Student enrolling there. Based upon the parental interview and records review, the Student appears to match the criteria for admission to the Residential Placement, subject to a final determination and confirmation of funding.

The Residential Placement was previously approved by New York State as residential placement but is not currently approved because it does not have any students from New York. The Residential Placement serves students from New Jersey and other states.

The Residential Placement Program Description states that it is a residential treatment program designed to stabilize and reintegrate children with unique behavioral needs whose challenges significantly impact personal development and family functioning. (Ex. K-5) The Residential Placement provides treatment and targeted transition across a 15 to 18 month period and uses ABA as part of its treatment program. (Id)

II. Mother The Parents presented the testimony of the Student’s Mother by affidavit. (Ex. P) The witness also appeared at the hearing for questioning. (March 16 T 140) A summary of the relevant testimony from this witness is as follows:

The Mother testified in detail regarding the Student’s educational history and maladaptive behaviors. At the 2021 IEP meeting the Mother requested a residential placement for the Student. The Mother testified regarding her efforts to identify the Residential Placement and notify the District in this regard. The Mother also testified regarding her request for additional services and compensatory services and reimbursement for transportation expenses.

SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE LAW

The IDEA is a comprehensive statutory framework established by the United States Congress to ensure that students with disabilities are afforded a FAPE. 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A); see Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S. Ct. 528 (2005); Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S.176 (1982); Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006). A FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet the student's unique needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP, which is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit. See Rowley; 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9)(D); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d); 34 C.F.R. § 300.22. The student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2); 8 NYCRR 200.6(a)(1).

In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. 999, 14 (2017), the Court held that, “[t]o meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances, as a focus on the particular child is at the core of the IDEA. The instruction offered must be “specially designed” to meet a child’s “unique needs” through an “individualized education program.” §§1401(29), (14) (emphasis added), to reflect the fact that a contemplated IEP must be focused on the “particular child that is at the core of the IDEA.”

Pursuant to New York Education Law §4404(1)(c), the board of education 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 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). In other words, preponderance of the evidence is evidence that is more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition to it. Greenwich Collieries v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 990 F. 2d 730, 736 (3rd. Cir. 1993), aff’d, 512 U.S. 246 (1994).

The decision in this case rests on a determination of the three-pronged test set forth by the United States Supreme Court, which provided that a board of education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents’ claim. School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Dept. of Educ., Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993).

Under the second prong of the Burlington/Carter test, the parents bear the burden of proving the appropriateness of the Residential Placement. See M.S. v. Board of Education of the City of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96, 104 (2d Cir. 2000); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 99-51; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 94-29; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 95-57. In order to meet that burden, the parents must show that Residential Placement offered an educational program designed to meet the Student’s special education needs. School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 99-51; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 98-76; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 94-29. A Residential Placement is only appropriate if it provides education instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child. Gagliardo v. Arlington Central School District, 489 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2007).

Regarding the placement of students with disabilities, N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8 § 200.6(a)(3) states: “Students with disabilities placed together for purposes of special education shall be grouped by similarity of individual needs as defined in section 200.1(ww) of this Part, in accordance with the following: (i) The range of academic or educational achievement of such students shall be limited to assure that instruction provides each student appropriate opportunities to achieve his or her annual goals. The learning characteristics of students in the group shall be sufficiently similar to assure that this range of academic or educational achievement is at least maintained. (ii) The social development of each student shall be considered prior to placement in any instructional group to assure that the social interaction within the group is beneficial to each student, contributes to each student's social growth and maturity, and does not consistently interfere with the instruction being provided. The social needs of a student shall not be the sole determinant of such placement. (iii) The levels of physical development of such students may vary, provided that each student is provided appropriate opportunities to benefit from such instruction. Physical needs shall be considered prior to determining placement to assure access to appropriate programs. The physical needs of the student shall not be the sole basis for determining placement. (iv) The management needs of such students may vary, provided that environmental modifications, adaptations, or, human or material resources required to meet the needs of any one student in the group are provided and do not consistently detract from the opportunities of other students in the group to benefit from instruction.”

Regarding least restrictive environment, N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8 § 200.1(cc) states that “Least restrictive environment means that placement of students with disabilities in special classes, separate schools or other removal from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that even with the use of supplementary aids and services, education cannot be satisfactorily achieved. The placement of an individual student with a disability in the least restrictive environment shall: (1) provide the special education needed by the student; (2) provide for education of the student to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the student with other students who do not have disabilities; and (3) be as close as possible to the student's home.”

ANALYSIS

Regarding the issue of whether the Student was provided a FAPE for the School Year, the District bears the burden of proof. However the District did not present a case in this regard.

By comparison, the Parent presented evidence and witness testimony indicating that the Student requires 20 hours of home based SETSS-ABA instruction as well as a residential placement due to his significant behavioral problems.

The 2022 IEP recommends placement in a NYSED-Approved Non Public Residential Placement. District Email #1 sets forth a list of rejected placements. The District did not provide any evidence their efforts to locate a residential placement for the Student.

The Parent has provided evidence and witness testimony documenting their efforts to identify the Residential Placement as an appropriate placement for the Student, and to notify the District regarding the Residential Placement.

District Email #2 is not directly responsive to the Parent’s request regarding the Residential Placement. (Ex. O) The email states: “Basically, there is nowhere else I can send referrals to.” However no further explanation is provided. The email also references Woods Services. However the District did not appear to provide an explanation or evidence in this regard.

Based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, I find that the Student was not provided a FAPE for the School Year primarily because he was not provided with a residential placement as recommended by the 2022 IEP and was not provided with all of the services recommended by the 2022 IEP.

Regarding the relief requested by the Parent, many of the items of relief are already recommended in the 2022 IEP and are not addressed here. Relief items not recommended in the 2022 IEP are discussed below.

The request for an increase in SETSS-ABA from 12 hours to 20 hours is supported by the Neuropsychological Evaluation as well as the Prior FOFD. The Parent is also seeking an additional 5 hours per day of SETSS-ABA for days the Student cannot attend the Current Placement. I credit the evidence presented for this purpose and find that the Student is entitled to the requested increase in SETSS-ABA.

The Parent is also requesting Counseling services for the Student. Counseling services were recommended in the 2021 IEP but not the 2022 IEP. The District did not provide an explanation in this regard. Based on the evidence presented regarding the Student’s circumstances, I find that the Student is entitled to and would benefit from the Counseling services recommended in the 2021 IEP.

The Parent is also requesting individual PCAT. Based on the evidence presented, I find that the parent is entitled to and would benefit from individual PCAT.

Regarding the request for BCBA supervision, the evidence suggests that this supervision is provided by the SETSS-ABA Provider in connection with the SETSS-ABA provided to the Student. (Ex. B-8-9, Ex. G, Ex. Q)

Regarding the Parents’ request for compensatory OT services, the evidence indicates that the Student did not receive his recommended OT during the School Year. The amount of compensatory OT requested by the Parent is consistent with the Student’s related services mandate for the School Year pursuant to the 2022 IEP.

Regarding the request for compensatory SETSS-ABA, the Parent is requesting compensatory SETSS-ABA services for the period from September 15, 2022 through March 30, 2023 in the amount of 8 hours per week based on the weekly increase from 12 hours to 20 hours. I credit the evidence and witness testimony presented regarding the compensatory services and find that the Student is entitled to compensatory OT and SETSS-ABA.

Regarding the Parent’s request for compensatory PCAT, the Mother testified regarding her need for PCAT and individual PCAT in particular. In addition, the 2022 IEP recommends a reduction in group PCAT to 30 minutes per month from 60 minutes per month recommended in the 2021 IEP. Based on the foregoing, I find that the Mother is entitled to compensatory individual PCAT.

Regarding the Parent’s request for reimbursement of transportation expenses, the Student is mandated to receive special transportation services pursuant to the 2022 IEP and 2021 IEP. The Parent testified that the District failed to provide a 1:1 bus paraprofessional during the School Year and that the Parent incurred transportation expenses in the amount of $759.80 as a result. The Parent submitted transportation reimbursement forms for the period September 2022-December 2022. (Ex. N) I credit the Parent’s testimony and evidence in this regard.

Regarding the request set forth in the closing brief for reimbursement for travel and lodging expenses for family visits to a residential placement, this request was not included in the DPC and was not discussed at the hearing. In addition, the Parents have not presented sufficient evidence in this regard as the Student is not yet placed at a residential placement.

ORDER

Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ordered:

1. The Student was not provided a FAPE for the School Year;

2. The District shall place the Student in a non public residential school, such as the Residential Placement, or a similarly appropriate residential school. Until then the Student shall remain at the Current Placement and shall receive the services recommended by the 2022 IEP, subject to the modifications ordered below;

3. The Student shall receive 20 hours per week of SETSS-ABA plus an additional 5 hours per day for any school day that the Student is unable to attend school due to the District’s failure to provide the special transportation services recommended by the 2022 IEP;

4. The District shall resume providing the Counseling services to the Student that were recommended in the 2021 IEP;

5. The Student is entitled to the following compensatory services, to be completed within 36 months:

i. 46 hours of compensatory OT. In addition, the District shall locate an OT provider. The compensatory OT can be provided by a SETSS-ABA provider if the District is unable an OT provider; ii. 223 hours of compensatory SETSS-ABA; iii. 12 hours of compensatory individual PCAT (for the Parent).

6. The District shall provide the special transportation services set forth in the 2022 IEP and shall reimburse the Parent for the transportation costs incurred during the School Year for days that the special transportation services recommended by the 2022 IEP are not provided;

SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 19, 2023

/s/ Sebastian A. Weiss, Esq.

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 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.

APPENDIX B – DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

PARENT EXHIBITS

A. Impartial Hearing Request 8/16/22 13 pages

B. FOFD #209850 12/2/22 21 pages

C. IEP 6/7/22 2022 77 pages

D. IEP 8/26/21 2021 57 pages

E. Subpoena 10/27/22 2 pages

F. Subpoena emails 2/9/23 & 2/14/23 2 pages

G. SETSS-ABA Progress Report 4/20/22 8 pages

H. NYSED Memo to Current Placement 4/30/13 2 pages

I. Neuropsychological Evaluation 10/13/21 17 pages

J. CBST email re residential placement 10/5/22 2 pages

K. Affidavit of Residential Placement Representative and Residential Placement Program Description undated 17 pages

L. Parent email to CBST 12/21/22 1 page

M. Parent email to CBST 1/12/23 1 page

N. Transportation Reimbursement Forms 2022 7 pages

O. CBST email 1/31/23 1 page

P. Affidavit of Mother Undated 9 pages

Q. SETSS-ABA Progress Report R Closing Statement 3/9/23 8 pages

DOE EXHIBITS

None.

Footnotes

[1] Exhibits, or “Ex.”, shall be referred to as follows: “P” for Parent Exhibits, which are otherwise indicated alphabetically; “D” for District Exhibits, which are otherwise indicated numerically; “JE” for Joint Exhibits; “CB” for closing brief; “IHO” for any Impartial Hearing Officer’s exhibits; and “T” for the hearing transcript, accompanied by the applicable hearing date.