California OAH special education order · August 18, 2014
Order Granting District's Motion to Limit Issues
OAH Case No. 2014040519 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH limited the hearing to events before Student's April 8, 2014 complaint filing date, because the IDEA confines hearings to issues raised in the complaint unless the other side agrees or the complaint is amended.
This case went to decision
Student v. Panama-Buena Vista Union School District: Panama-Buena Vista Union prevails; ALJ denies home hospital instruction claim because required medical report was never provided. (2014)
Summary
District asked OAH to limit the hearing issues to events on or before April 8, 2014, the date Student filed the complaint. Student opposed, arguing that leaving out later events would force a new case for every new wrong, and that District should have to show harm. OAH granted the motion. It held that the IDEA limits the hearing to issues raised in the complaint unless the other party agrees, that District did not have to show harm, and that Student had not asked to amend. The order keeps Student's right to seek amendment and leaves the hearing judge free to admit later evidence and to craft a remedy that reflects Student's needs through the date of the decision.
Why it matters
Parents who want a hearing to cover events after the complaint was filed must ask OAH for leave to amend, which restarts the timelines, or get the district's agreement. A district does not have to show harm to keep the hearing to the issues pleaded in the complaint.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(B)
- Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (i)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B)
- Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (e)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)
- Ed. Code, § 56501.5
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. 2014040519
v. ORDER GRANTING DISTRICT’S
MOTION TO LIMIT ISSUES
PANAMA-BUENA VISTA UNION
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On April 8, 2014, Student filed a due process hearing request (complaint) against Panama-Buena Vista Union School District (District).
On August 15, 2014, District filed a motion to limit the issues for hearing to those arising on or before the filing of the complaint on April 8, 2014. On August 18, 2014, Student filed an opposition.
APPLICABLE LAW
Parents have the right to present a complaint “with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.” (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6); Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a).) However, “the party requesting the due process hearing shall not be allowed to raise issues at the due process hearing that were not raised in the [complaint], unless the other party agrees otherwise.” (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(B); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (i).) A complaint may be amended at any time prior to five days before the hearing if the other party agrees or the hearing officer grants permission. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (e).) However, amendment of the complaint will restart all decision timelines in order to permit the parties an opportunity to attend a resolution session. (See Ibid. & Ed.
Code, § 56501.5 [describing mandatory resolution session before parties can proceed to a due process hearing].)
DISCUSSION
District contends that Student, through his filings and correspondence with District, intends to expand the hearing issues to events that occurred after the April 8, 2014 filing date. In other words, Student intends for the issues at hearing to encompass not only those events and actions described in the complaint, but events and actions that have occurred through the date of the hearing.
In his opposition, Student contends that if issues that arise subsequent to the filing of a complaint are not made a part of the hearing, Student will be required to initiate a new due process proceeding to right every alleged wrong. Student asserts that District should be required to make a showing of harm in order to limit issues to those alleged in the complaint.
The IDEA very clearly limits a due process hearing to those issues, and only those issues, raised in the complaint unless the responding party agrees otherwise. The responding party is not required to demonstrate harm in order to limit the issues to those pleaded by the petitioner, and District is not required to make such a showing here.
The IDEA and California special education law provide a mechanism for seeking leave to amend a due process hearing request if the petitioner seeks to change or add to the issues for hearing. Here, Student has not requested permission from OAH to file an amended complaint. Absent an amended complaint, District is correct that the issues for hearing are limited to events and conduct occurring prior to the April 8, 2014 filing date of the complaint. Accordingly, the motion of District to limit the issues to events and conduct that occurred prior to April 8, 2014 is granted.
This order does not limit Student’s right to amend the complaint under the procedure set forth in Education Code section 56502, subdivision (e). Neither does this order limit the discretion of the administrative law judge presiding at the due process hearing to (i)
determine whether to admit evidence of events or conduct occurring after April 8, 2014, or (ii) in the event Student prevails, craft a remedy that takes into account Student’s educational needs through the date of the decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: August 18, 2014
/S/
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings