California OAH special education order · July 15, 2013
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2013050092 · ALJ Timothy L. Newlove
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider its refusal to provide CART transcription for the special education advocate, finding no new facts, circumstances, or law that changed her role as assistant to Student's attorney.
Summary
OAH had earlier denied Student's request that OAH provide computer-assisted real-time transcription (CART) services for advocate Karma M. Quick. It found that attorney Betsy Brazy was Student's legal representative and Ms. Quick was her assistant, and that the law does not require OAH to provide CART for someone in that role. Student asked for reconsideration, stressing that Ms. Quick is an important part of the legal team. OAH denied the request because that point did not change Ms. Quick's status as an assistant and was not a new or different fact, circumstance, or law.
Why it matters
A reconsideration request must offer genuinely new facts, circumstances, or law, not a restatement of earlier arguments. The order also shows that OAH may decline to provide disability accommodations such as CART to a non-attorney advocate who is assisting the party's attorney rather than acting as the party's representative.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
People named in the order
- Betsy Brazy, Student's attorney
- Karma M. Quick, Special education advocate assisting Student's attorney
Topics
Full text of the order
Published text of the OAH order. Page headers and numbers from the original PDF have been dropped.
BEFORE THE
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2013050092
v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On July 11, 2013, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) issued an Order that denied Student’s request to provide computer-assisted real-time transcription (CART)
services for Karma M. Quick, during proceedings in this case. The Order determined that attorney Betsy Brazy is Student’s legal representative in the case; that Ms. Quick, as a special education advocate, serves as an assistant to Ms. Brazy; and that the applicable law does not require OAH to provide CART services for a person in Ms. Quick’s position. On July 15, 2013, Student filed with OAH a request to reconsider the Order.
The Office of Administrative Hearings will generally reconsider a ruling upon a showing of new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration, when the party seeks reconsideration within a reasonable period of time. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 11521; Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.) The party seeking reconsideration may also be required to provide an explanation for its failure to previously provide the different facts, circumstances or law. (See Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199-1200.)
Here, Student’s request for reconsideration notes that Ms. Quick is an important part of Student’s legal team. However, the request does not change Ms. Quick’s position as an assistant to Student’s legal representative. Accordingly, the request does not meet the standard of showing a new or different set of facts, circumstances or law, and is thereby denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 15, 2013 /s/
TIMOTHY L. NEWLOVE
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings