NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number: 159986
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: May 3, 2016
August 9, 2016
Actual Record Closed Date: October 1, 2016
Hearing Officer: Elise Kestenbaum, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 3, 2016
Esq. Attorney — Student
Esq. Attorney — Student
Esq. Attorney — Student
Parents
District Representative — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON AUGUST 9, 2016
Esq. Attorney — Student
Esq. Attorney — Student
Esq. Attorney — Student
Parents
Esq. Attorney — Student
Dr. — Student
District Representative — DOE
Introduction: — DOE
This case was brought before me upon my designation by the Department of Education (“District”) as an impartial hearing officer pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Act (“IDEA”), 29 USC §1400 [f][1] and Part 200 of the Regulations of the New York State Commissioner of Education. This matter was brought by , the Parent (“Parent”) on behalf of , the student (“Student”),through her attorney, , Esq. from , and , Esq. and , Esq. from by filing a Due Process Complaint dated March 8, 2016 with the District The Parent is alleging that her son, , was denied a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 school years and is seeking an appropriate program, including , ,
, and as necessary, including recommendations for , , , and to address any needs and recommendations as identified by the IEEs. Additionally, the Parent is seeking funding for a State-approved non-public school placement (NPS).
There were two (2) days of hearings in this matter. Hearings were conducted on May 3, 29, 2016 and August 9, 2016.Extensions were granted in this case making the final compliance date October 20, 2016.1The Parent submitted a Closing Statement and Memorandum of Law and the District did not. IHO-I. A list of Exhibits is attached as Exhibit A. The Parents and the Impartial Hearing Officer submitted exhibits.
Background
This case involved an student who is classified as . The child had been diagnosed with . IHO-I; P-A. During the 1 The Parties moved to extend the compliance date in this matter several times during the course of the hearing. In considering these requests, I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the requests were in accordance with the requirements of due process. Accordingly requests for extensions of the case compliance date were granted. IHO-II.
2015-16 school year, was in the at , where
he he has remained since .
With respect to the 2015-16 school year, an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) was developed on November 9, 2015. P-D. Pursuant to the November 9, 2015 IEP, the following recommendations were made:
1. ;
2. ;
3. ;
4. ;
5. ;
6. ;
7. ;
8. ; and
9. .
With respect to the 2014-15 school year, an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) was developed on November 17, 2014. P-Z. Pursuant to the November 17, 2014 IEP, the following recommendations were made:
1. ;
2. ;
3. ;
4. ;
5. ;
6. ;
7. ;
8. ; and
9. .
With respect to the 2013-14 school year, an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) was developed on November 22, 2013. P-EE. Pursuant to the November 22, 2013 IEP, the following recommendations were made:
1. ;
2. ;
3. ;
4. ;
5. ;
6. ;
7. ;
8. ;
9. ; and
10. .
The Parent filed a Due Process Complaint on March 8, 2016. P-A. I was appointed as an Impartial Hearing Officer at that time. On May 11, 2016, an Interim Order was issued
(IHO-III) and the District was required to fund independent educational evaluations (IEEs) for including a Evaluation and a ( ). Once the evaluations were complete (P-KK; P-MM), a hearing was held on August 9, 2016. Subsequent to that the parties were given the opportunity to prepare written briefs and to submit supporting documentation. The Parent submitted a Closing Statement (IHO-I) but the District did not.
Position of the Parties
District’s Case
The District conceded FAPE in this matter for the 2013-142, 2014-15 and 2015-16 school years. The District did not call any witnesses nor place any documents in evidence.
Parent’s Case
The Parents called three witnesses, , Dr. , and the Parent and placed 49 documents in evidence. P-A--P-WW.
The first witness was . She is the . She
received certifications in special education and elementary education as well as early childhood. She is a New York State licensed and a
. Tr. 76
She is familiar with since she conducted a
( ) on him and completed a report in connection thereto on June 13, 2016. Tr. 79.
Based on her review of the Student’s records, including ’s IEPs, reports, , , etc., she determined that
. Tr.
81. In addition, even though is , , it
was reported that but that
. Tr. 81. In preparing her evaluation, Ms. spoke to staff members at the school as well as interviewing the Parent. Tr. 87. She also observed in school including as well including . Tr. 82. In this regard, she was taken data in all environments. Tr. 82.
On the day of the observation, Ms. found
. It was later indicated that
. In addition, she observed that and
. Tr. 84. During her observation there were times when .
. Tr. 84.
In fact,
. Tr. 84.
. Tr. 84.
She testified that the staff was not utilizing any
Tr. 85. Although they showed her , she did not see them use it with him and she is not sure he would have understood it because
. Tr. 85-86.
Although the staff was reluctant to speak with Ms. , and she was told that they were given instructions not to speak with her, the allowed the staff to provide her with some information after school. Tr. 86. The staff indicated that
, and that
. The stated that
. Tr. 87. The staff generally
indicated that , ,
, , , etc. Tr. 87. Because of
, Ms. was told that
. Tr. 88. The also indicated that she was told that . Tr. 88; P-KK.
Ms. testified with respect to aspects of the she prepared. P-KK. After analyzing the data, Ms. stated that
. These are
. Tr. 91. Ms.
testified that she is presently developing a . Tr. 92. In terms of recommendations, Ms. recommends a program.
She believes will provide a and since
, there are
. Tr. 93.She stated that using a or , which has been the strategy at this time, has not and will not be conducive to ’s . Tr. 94. Ms. indicated that in this regard,
. Tr. 94. Ms. also recommended that
. Tr. 94.
She stated that
. Tr. 94. He needs and
. Tr. 95. By utilizing , would be provided with a
.
Ms. also recommends a .
Tr. 95. She testified that and he
requires and she
has not seen a public school setting that would be able to support his unique needs. Tr.
95. She also feels that the and other staff that works with should be trained and that they should have training in and as well as training in . Tr. 96. Ms.
also recommended a program due to
. Tr. 98. She believes that
. Tr. 99.
Therefore, without the program, there is
. Tr. 99. Also, to avoid any , she
recommends that . Tr. 100. Due to the and and due to the fact that , and the fact that , , clearly indicates that he needs a in order to .
Tr. 101. The ratio can be systematically faded but it could take several months. Tr. 102. is crucial and an integral part of any program. It is important for and . Tr. 102. It is also important to . Tr. 103. A is necessary to due to the . The is also necessary to and also to e
and that . Tr.
103. If this program is ordered for , can arrange for the services and . Tr. 104. The recommendation for was . For and , charges per hour and for the , it’s per hour. Tr. 104. The total cost of the and is
.
Ms. feels that the current program that’s in place is not effective and
. Tr.
106. She also stated that the staff reported that and therefore she believes an should be on file at the school as well. Tr. 106.
On cross examination, Ms. testified that she is recommending which can be . Tr. 108. With respect to the , and then after , provided , . Tr. 109. The will and will also
. Tr. 109.
The next witness was Dr. . He is a and was
for
21 years, is on faculty at , and is in private practice. Tr. 116. He has been working with children with and children with for approximately 28 years, has evaluated children with the Department of Education, and is familiar with the Department of Education’s continuum of services. Tr. 117.
He is familiar with because he was asked to conduct an independent evaluation of the Student in May 2016. Tr. 218.
. However, and
. Tr. 119; Tr. 120. Dr. reviewed records
going back to when he was including the last few years of IEPs. Tr. 120. He said that the information he reviewed was significant since it showed historically areas where he was able to show and areas where early on, they were noting progress. Progressively, it also showed and . Tr. 120.
In all the years, Dr. has tested children,
. Tr. 121.
. Tr. 122.
. Tr. 122.
.
. Tr. 123. . The data
was most significant for what he could not do and the observation of his significant . Tr. 123. included ,
, , ,
, , etc. Tr. 124. Through their testing
and , and looking at reports and talking to the aide and the Parent,
Dr. determined that
. Tr. 125.
When his were tested, it was determined that
. Tr. 124. and
. Tr. 126. With respect to , Dr. observed times where . He was told that and , but . Tr. 127. Dr. stated that
. Tr. 127.
and Dr.
stated that . Tr. 128.
When he arrived at school the Student was and the staff told him . Tr. 128. Dr.
testified that the staff had no set plan as to and
. Tr. 128.
. Tr. 129.
The staff basically concentrated on
. Tr. 129. Although he receives , Dr. stated that during his observation and since , the session did not take place. Dr. testified that and so nothing that he saw was . Tr. 130.
The staff indicated that the Student and
Dr. was not shown anything to indicate that he was appropriately placed or that there was a plan that could meet his needs at all. Tr. 130.
Dr. recommended that receive
. Tr. 131. He needs this because
. Tr. 132. By providing him with they may be able to and analyzing what works and what doesn’t. Tr. 132. He also would require that a . Tr. 133. He testified that they should have their Master’s degree in special education with training in and . Tr. 134.
for any meaningful approach to potential progress. Tr. 134. Dr.
also recommended services since
and
. Tr. 135. Although he will also need an
( ), they need to
. .
Tr. 136.
Dr. testified that he is need to be addressed now. Tr. 137. He is recommending a school program utilizing , in a classroom of students and adults, and . Tr.
139. Dr. indicated that there are private schools not necessarily on the approved list that deliver using the methodology he recommends. Tr. 140. In Dr.
’s recommendation he indicates that “
”. He indicated that this could be accomplished by a or through a . Tr. 141. Dr. also indicated that he recommended since , s and . Tr. 141. He felt that would not allow him to . Tr.
142. Without a program, he will not make any progress. Tr. 142. Dr.
believes that he will be able to handle since he already has and these would be done in a more productive way. Tr. 143. He also indicated that he will continue to receive as well as t since they are for different purposes.
The last witness was the Parent. is and is approximately and . He has . Tr. 148. He also has , etc. Tr. 149. He is in the and attends , which is . Tr. 145. Prior to this he attended for two years. He received , and at that time. At he receives, , , , and . She stated that she has concerns about ’s because and , , , ,
, , , , and .
Tr. 152. He also . Tr. 153. He receives
. Tr. 153. When
,
. Tr. 154. His mother stated that
, . Tr. 155. He is and . She testified that she believes
he is . Tr.
155.
She receives that ,
, , , , , , etc.
Tr. 155-156. She has tried to help the school by offering suggestions and tools. She has put them in touch with her doctors and specialists and has tried working with them. For example, , and , etc. Tr. 156; P-
RR, P-QQ. ’s teachers and service providers have had no success with the methods she has recommended. The school has . She testified that . Tr. 159; Tr. 162.
.
. Tr. 159. She has tried
to help with this to date. He . She
believes that . Tr. 161.
The Parent stated that
. . Tr. 162.
. Tr. 163.
. . Tr. 164.
. ,
, . Tr. 165.
. Tr. 165. .
Tr. 165.
The Parent testified that the school did not ever try to change ’s goals over the years. Tr. 166. She would, however, speak to the staff on a daily basis about . Tr. 167. Although there was a ,
. Tr. 168.
The Parent testified that she asked the school for services during the summer of 2014 based on the recommendation of her , Dr. . P-PP.
The school indicated that they do not provide . Tr. 169. The parent also testified that in November of 2015, she submitted a letter to (P-K)
requesting evaluations because things were not working in school and she wanted to get a bigger picture of ’s needs. Tr. 170.
The Parent also testified that
. Tr. 170.
The Parent further dated that and given the right education and the right chances, he can grow. Tr. 171. She also testified that he has not shown any progress this year.
Findings
Two purposes of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their individual needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and (2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected (20 U.S.C.
1499[D][1][A]-[B]; see generally, Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2491 [2009]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]).
The purpose of the IDEA is to ensure that all children with disabilities have available a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) which addresses their unique special education needs and to ensure that their rights and the rights of Parents are protected. A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA; and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA’s procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). While school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (A.C. v. Bd. Of Educ., 553 F3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent.
Sch. Dist., 346 F3d 377, 381[2d Cir. 2003; Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211 at *10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007]). Under the IDEA, if a procedural violation is alleged an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student’s right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C. §1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 CFR 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; Winkleman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 525-26 [2007]; A.H. v. Dep’t of Educ., 2010 WL 3242234, at *2 [2dCir. Aug. 16, 2010]; E.H. v. Bd. Of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y.
Aug. 21, 2008]; Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp.2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007] aff’d 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008]).
A school district offers FAPE by “providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction” (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203). However, the “IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP” (Walczak
v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir. 1998]; see, Rowley, 458 U.S.
at 189). The statute ensures an “appropriate” education, “not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents” (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 [2d Cir. 1989]
[citations omitted]; see, Grim, 346 F.3d at 379). Additionally, school districts are not required to “maximize” the potential of students with disabilities (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). Nonetheless, a school district must provide “an IEP that is ‘likely to produce progress, not regression,’ and …affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere ‘trivial advancement’ (Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see, P. v.
Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir. 2008]; Perricelli, 20007 WL 465211, at *15). The IEP must be “reasonably calculated to provide some ‘meaningful’ benefit” (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see, Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). The student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (20 U.S.C. § 1412 [a][5][A]; 34 CFR 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2];8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir.2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132; E.G. v. City Sch. Dist. Of New Rochelle, 606 F. Supp. 2d 384, 388 [S.D.N.Y. 2009]; Patskin v. Bd. Of Educ., 583 F. Supp. 2d 422, 428 [W.D.N.Y. 2008]).
An appropriate education begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the students’ needs (34 CFR 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]; Tarlowe v. Dep’t of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008), establishes annual goals related to those needs (34 CFR 300.320[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services. (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][4];8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; see Application of the Dep’t of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Childwith a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep’t of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02- 014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No.93-9).
The New York State Legislature amended the Education Law to place the burden of production and persuasion upon the school district during 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 (Educ. Law §4404[1][c], as amended by Ch. 583 of the Laws of 2007).
Based upon the District’s concession of FAPE, I find that the District did not provide FAPE to the Student for the 2013-14 (from March 8-June 2014), 2014-15, and 2015-16 school years. Although the Parent did not have to address this, it is clear from the totality of the evidence presented, the District did not meet its burden in showing that the recommended programs for the 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 school years were sufficient to meet the Student’s needs and provide him with academic benefit. The
Parent’s Closing Brief and Memorandum of Law (IHO-I) clearly delineates the failure of the District to meet its burden in showing that FAPE was provided and that the Student’s IEPs for the 2013-14 , 2014-15 and 2015-16 school years were designed to meet ’s unique needs and were reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit. In addition, no proof was offered that the District provided services and programs to address . The testimony of the Parent’s witnesses, Ms.
, Dr. , and the Parent was credible and unrebutted. Therefore, for all the foregoing reasons, I find that the District did not provide FAPE to . for the 2013-14 school year during the time period covered by the statute of limitations, and for the 2014-
15 and 2015-16 school years.
With respect to relief, in L.O. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 822 F.3d 95 ( 2d Cir. 2016), the Court held that “we are directed by statute that, “[i]n any action brought under the IDEA, the court ‘shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate.’ ”
Doe v. E. Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440, 454 (2d Cir.2015) (quoting 20 U.S.C. §
1415(i)(2)(C)(iii)), cert. denied, No. 15–1159, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 2022, –––
L.Ed.2d ––––, 2016 WL 1059911 (U.S. May 16, 2016). Courts retain broad discretion in fashioning an award, restrained only by the Supreme Court’s directive that “the relief is to be ‘appropriate’ in light of the circumstances of the Act. Sch. Comm. Of Town of Burlington, Mass. v. Dept. of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359, 369, 105 S.Ct. 1996, 85
L.Ed.2d 385 (1985). The Supreme Court has held that “equitable considerations are relevant in fashioning relief” in any IDEA action. See Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374, 105 S.Ct. 1996; see also Doe, 790 F3d. at 454. Further, although “[a]n award of damages is not available, ... a court may award various forms of retroactive and prospective equitable relief, including reimbursement of tuition, compensatory education, and other declaratory and injunctive remedies.” Doe, 790 F.3d at 454 (citing Burlington, 471 U.S. at 369, 105 S.Ct. 1996; Polera v. Bd. of Educ. of Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 288 F. 3d 478, 486 (2d Cir. 2002)).”
In the instant matter, was not receiving FAPE and if no changes are made, both Dr. a who conducted the Evaluation
(P-MM) and who conducted the (P-KK) testified that unless significant changes are made to his program, . Ms.
specifically stated that the current program is not effective and and will become more problematic if not addressed. Tr. 106. Dr. ,
, testified
that
, therefore, need to be addressed now. Tr. 137.
Both Dr. and Ms. agree that must be addressed through that is to provide for and . In the , Ms. states that “ .” In this regard they have both recommended a program in a using
( ) with with
. In Dr. ’s report he states that requires
( )
. He specifically stated in his report that “ .” He also indicated that ’s program “
” Ms.
also testified that and will require
. Both parties also stated that given as well as , he must be provided with a of a minimum of utilizing . Dr.
stated that “
” P-MM.
Ms. testified that when you
, . Tr. 99.
Ms. addressed the need for a in order to and Dr. indicated that he should continue to have his and his since they are for different purposes.
With respect to , Ms. stated that this is crucial to and an integral part of any . She testified that it is important to and to
. Tr. 103.
Both Ms. and Dr. believe that a is necessary to due to and to and also to ensure that the data is analyzed systematically and that appropriate changes are made based on the data. Tr. 103.
With respect to , Dr.
stated that requires . He indicated that “
” He testified that and t
and his other times where
. Although, he will need
, he believes they need a little time to
. Tr. 136.
Based upon the foregoing, and my review of the documentation and the record, I have prepared an Order set forth below, addressing the resolution of the issues raised in the Due Process Complaint.
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED, that:
The District shall
1. Convene at CSE meeting within ten days to develop an appropriate IEP for The CSE must ensure that the meeting is scheduled on a date and at a time that the Parent is available to attend, consistent with state law.
a. The CSE shall locate and place through CBST in an appropriate non-public approved school (NPS) that provides with an appropriately qualified provider who is trained in as set forth in Dr. ’s and Ms. ’s evaluations.
P-MM; P-KK. The
.
b. At the meeting, the CSE shall review the recommendations provided by Ms. in her (P-MM) and Dr. in his
Evaluation (P-KK) as well as all of the other evaluations and reports provided by the Parent and the District and relevant to ’s placement.
c. shall be placed in a classroom with less than with at least .
d. The CSE shall consider a change in classification to , if the classification would be appropriate based on the evaluations presented, and would be helpful to the Student in securing placement;
e. Effective immediately, until such time as the parties agree to and starts at an NPS or until such time as the District is able to provide with , the District shall fund for . This shall be provided by at a rate not to exceed per hour.
The shall be provided by and the District shall fund the at a rate not to exceed per hour.
f. At all times, the Student shall continue to have
.
2. The CSE shall also provide with a program of of by an appropriately qualified provider through to begin immediately, . This shall be provided in a and can be systematically faded to based on the ’s report, and thereafter shall continue at .
a. The District shall fund the at a rate not to exceed per hour through .
3. Effective immediately, the CSE shall also provide f of for the and thereafter.
a. The District shall fund the at a rate not to exceed per hour through .
4. Effective immediately, the CSE shall also provide with of with a provider through .
a. The District shall fund the at a rate not to exceed per hour through .
5. The CSE shall increase ’s to at each time and shall or if necessary
based on
’s individual needs. The related services of , and shall continue at the same frequencies as presently provided, however, they may be changed based upon a review of the reports and evaluations at the CSE meeting and the NPS program that is chosen to best meet the needs of the Student.
6. The CSE shall reconvene in six months to reassess ’s needs and to determine if another evaluation is necessary.
7. The CSE shall incorporate the prepared by Ms. into the IEP that is being developed.
8. The Student shall continue to receive and a
.
9. Once the placement is finalized, the CSE shall reconvene to prepare a final
IEP.
Dated: October 13, 2016
ELISE B. KESTENBAUM, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer
EBK:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
“The notice of intention to seek review shall be served upon the school district not less than 10 days before 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. The petition for review shall be served upon the school district 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. ” (8NYCRR279.2[b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.
Directions and sample forms for filing an appeal are included with this decision. Directions and forms can also be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm.
Appendix A
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
Parent Exhibits
No. Date Document Pages
A. 3/8/2016 Parent’s Hearing Request 22
B. 2/21/2016 Due Process Response 4
C. undated SESIS Events [from 2/10/2012 to 3/18/2016] 20
D. 11/9/2015 IEP 19
E. 1/6/2016 E-mail from re: “IEP/Consent for “Evaluations” 6
F. 1/6/2016 DOE “Assessment Planning for [Student]” 1
G. VOID
H. 12/17/2015 E-mail from ( ) to Parent 1
I. misc. dates E-mail from Parent to 2
J. VOID
K. 12/10/2015 Prior Written Notice 3
L. 12/9/2015 E-mails from ( ) to Parent 2
M. misc. dates E-mail from ( ) to Parent 5
N. 12/3/2015 E-mail from ( ) to Parent 1
O. 12/2/2015 E-mail from Parent to 2
P. 11/30/2015 E-mail from Parent to 2
Q. 11/25/2015 Letter to Parent from 1
R. 11/25/2015 E-mail from Parent to 1
S. misc. dates E-mails between Parent and 2
T. 11/28/2015 Fax cover Sheet to re: “referral” 1
U. 11/12/2015 Parent Letter to 1
V. misc. dates E-mails between Parent & 3
W. misc. dates E-mails between Parent and ( ) 2
X. 11/9/2015 DOE Student Progress Report ( ) 2
Y. 1/21/2015 School Report Form 5
Z. 11/17/2014 IEP 13
AA. 10/27/2014 DOE 5
BB. 10/22.2014 3
CC. 10/21/2014 DOE 6
DD. 3/19/2014 Prior Written Notice 3
EE. 11/22/2013 IEP 13
FF. 11/16/2013 DOE 2
GG. 11/2013 DOE Evaluation 2
HH. 2/21/2013 DOE 1
II. 2/6/2013 DOE (two versions) 2
JJ. 5/31/2012 7
KK. 6.13.2016 ( ) 21
LL. undated Resume- 1
MM. misc. dates Evaluation ( ) 6
NN. undated Resume- 8
OO. misc. dates -Bill for Services 1
PP. 5/30/14 Letter from 1
QQ. 3/6/2015 E-mails between ( ) and Parent 9
RR. 1/30/2015 E-mails between ( ) and Parent 3
SS. 7/22/2015 E-mails between ( ) and Parent 1
TT. 3/27/2015 E-mails between ( ) and Parent 1
UU. 3/27/2015 Memo. From ( ) 1
VV. 4/12/2016 Letter from ( ) to Parent 1
WW. misc dates (s) 18
Impartial Hearing Officer’s Exhibits
I. 9/9/2016 Parent Closing Statement 28
II. misc. dates Compliance Decisions 5
III. 5/11/16 Interim Order 6
Footnotes
[2] With respect to the Statute of Limitations, the District is conceding FAPE for the 2013-14 school year from March 8, 2013 through June 2014 since the Due Process Complaint was filed on March 8, 2016. Tr. 183; P-A.