California OAH special education order · September 9, 2013
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2013090193 · ALJ Robert Helfand
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged that District paid for only 20 of the 30 ESY days at a nonpublic school promised in the IEP, and it sought reimbursement.
Summary
Student's complaint raised one issue: whether District must fund the full 30-day Extended School Year (ESY) program at the nonpublic school Personal Coaching Systems, as provided in the November 2012 IEP. Student alleged that District paid for only 20 days and that Parent paid $2,430 for the other 10. District filed a Notice of Insufficiency. OAH found the complaint sufficient because it identified the issue, gave enough related facts, and proposed a resolution, so District could respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation. All dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A short, focused complaint that names the IEP provision, explains what the district failed to fund, and states the exact reimbursement sought is enough to survive a sufficiency challenge.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
- Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2013090193
v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On September 3, 2013 Parent on behalf of Student (Student) filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) naming the Torrance Unified School District (District) as respondent.
On September 5, 2013, the District filed a Notice of Insufficiency (NOI) as to Student’s complaint.
APPLICABLE LAW
The named parties to a due process hearing request have the right to challenge the sufficiency of the complaint. 2 The party filing the complaint is not entitled to a hearing unless the complaint meets the requirements of Title 20 United States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A).
A complaint is sufficient if it contains: (1) a description of the nature of the problem of the child relating to the proposed initiation or change concerning the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the child; (2) facts relating to the problem; and (3) a proposed resolution of the problem to the extent known and available to the party at the time. 3 These 1 A request for a due process hearing under Education Code section 56502 is the due process complaint notice required under Title 20 United States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A).
2 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c).
3 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV).
requirements prevent vague and confusing complaints, and promote fairness by providing the named parties with sufficient information to know how to prepare for the hearing and how to participate in resolution sessions and mediation. 4 The complaint provides enough information when it provides “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.” 5 The pleading requirements should be liberally construed in light of the broad remedial purposes of the IDEA and the relative informality of the due process hearings it authorizes. 6 Whether the complaint is sufficient is a matter within the sound discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. 7
DISCUSSION
The sole issue of the complaint is whether the District is responsible for funding the full Extended School Year program at the nonpublic school, Personal Coaching Systems (PCS), where Student is placed. Student alleges that he is a 12th grader and has been eligible for special education and related services under the category of Autism since 1999, and that the District has placed Student at PCS. In the November 8, 2012 Individualized Education Program (IEP), the District continued to place Student at PCS including for the Extended School Year (ESY). Student contends that the IEP, which was consented to by Student’s parent, provided that Student would attend the full 30 day ESY program at PCS at District expense. Student contends that the District only paid for 20 days of the ESY program.
Student requests that Student’s parent be reimbursed the sum of $2,430.00, which Student’s parent paid for the 10 days of ESY not paid for by the District.
4 See, H.R.Rep. No. 108-77, 1st Sess. (2003), p. 115; Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1st Sess. (2003), pp. 34-35.
5 Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, supra, at p. 34.
6 Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H., Sept. 10, 2009, No. 06-cv-0215- JL) 2009 WL 2957991 at p.3 [nonpub. opn.]; Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F. Supp.2d 1248, 1259-1260; Sammons v. Polk County School Bd.
(M.D. Fla., Oct. 28, 2005, No. 8:04CV2657T24EAJ) 2005 WL 2850076 at p. 3[nonpub.
opn.] ; but cf. M.S.-G. v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx.
772, at p. 3[nonpub. opn.].
7 Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities, 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006).
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put the District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problem to permit the District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Therefore, Student’s complaint is sufficient.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under Title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
Dated: September 9, 2013 /s/
ROBERT HELFAND
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings