California OAH special education order · July 9, 2014
Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2014061240 · ALJ Kara Hatfield
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged District failed to offer a 1:1 nurse in the September 2013 IEP and May 2014 amendment, and proposed specific remedies.
Summary
District filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint alleged District denied Student a FAPE by failing to offer a full-time 1:1 nurse in the September 12, 2013 IEP and by not extending 1:1 nursing into the 2014-2015 school year in the May 13, 2014 IEP amendment. It asked for a nonpublic agency 1:1 nurse every school day and compensatory services for school missed since May 27, 2014. OAH found the complaint gave District enough facts and proposed remedies to understand the issues, so the complaint was sufficient and all dates stayed in place.
Why it matters
A complaint that names the specific IEPs, the specific service that was denied, the time periods involved, and a concrete remedy will survive a sufficiency challenge. Pleading standards are read liberally in parents' favor.
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. 2014061240
v. ORDER DENYING NOTICE OF
INSUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On June 23, 2014 Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) naming San Francisco Unified School District (District).
On July 8, 2014, District timely 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 requirements prevent vague and confusing complaints, and promote fairness by providing the 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).
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
Student’s complaint alleges that District denied Student a FAPE since September 12, 2013. Specifically, the complaint alleges that in the September 12, 2013 IEP, District failed to offer Student a 1:1 nurse five days per week, and in the May 13, 2014 amendment IEP, District failed to offer Student a 1:1 nurse beyond the 2014 extended school year for the start of the 2014-2015 school year until his next annual IEP in September 2014.
Student’s proposed resolution is for District to provide Student a 1:1 nurse from a non-public agency all day, every school day. Student also requests that District provide compensatory services for the time Student was unable to attend school since May 27, 2014. The complaint states Student’s name and date of birth, Student’s residence address and school of attendance.
A review of the complaint shows that Student provided ample “facts related to the problem” to provide District the requisite “awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of [Student’s] complaint.” Student alleges that he needed but District did not offer1:1 nursing services between September 12, 2014 and May 13, 2014, and that he 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).
needs but District did not offer 1:1 nursing services between the start of the 2014-2015 regular school year and the date of his annual IEP in September 2014.
In sum, Student’s complaint identifies the issues, adequate related facts about the problem(s), and proposed resolutions to permit District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Accordingly, the 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.
DATE: July 09, 2014
/S/
KARA HATFIELD
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings