California OAH special education order · August 31, 2015

Order Granting Motion to Clarify Issues for Hearing

OAH Case No. 2015060909 · ALJ Chris Butchko

OAH granted Student's motion to clarify the hearing issues and rewrote them after finding they needed restating. The case now centers on whether District failed to timely fund or defend its evaluation after an IEE request.

Granted Prehearing conference orders

This case went to decision

Student v. Los Angeles Unified School District: Los Angeles Unified did not unnecessarily delay its response to a parent's speech-language IEE request; all relief denied. (2015)

Summary

After the prehearing conference order set out the issue for hearing, Student moved to clarify the issues, and the ALJ heard oral argument. Based on the papers and argument, OAH found the issues needed restating and amended the prehearing conference order. The restated issues ask whether District, after Parent's April 7, 2015 request for an independent educational evaluation (IEE), failed without unnecessary delay to either file for due process to defend its evaluation or fund the IEE. They also ask whether that failure denied Student a FAPE by significantly impeding Parent's participation. All hearing dates stayed the same.

Why it matters

Parents can ask OAH to fix how the issues are framed after the prehearing conference. ALJs may reword issues as long as they make no substantive changes, so the hearing addresses the claims the parent actually raised.

Key authority cited

J.W. v. Fresno Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 431

Topics

prehearing conference clarify issues independent educational evaluation parent participation speech and language

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. 2015060909 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

CLARIFY ISSUES FOR HEARING

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT.

On June 12, 2015, Parent on behalf of student filed a due process hearing request with the Office of Administrative Hearings. A prehearing conference was held on August 21, 2015. On that day, the ALJ issued an order following the prehearing conference which set out the issue for hearing. The ALJ has authority to redefine a party’s issues, so long as no substantive changes are made. (J.W. v. Fresno Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 431, 442-443.) On August 27, 2015, Student filed a motion to clarify the issues to be heard. Oral argument on the motion was had before ALJ Chris Butchko on August 28, 2015..

Based upon the papers submitted and the argument presented, it is apparent that the statement of issues for hearing needs to be restated. The motion to clarify is granted.

Accordingly, the Issues and Proposed Resolution section in the Order Following Prehearing Conference issued on August 21, 2015, is amended for Section 2 to read as follows:

2. Issues and Proposed Resolutions. The issues to be heard at the due process

hearing are listed below:

1) Following Parent’s request for an independent educational evaluation on April 7, 2015, did District fail to, without unnecessary delay, either file a due process complaint to show that its evaluation was appropriate or provide an independent educational evaluation at public expense? 2) If so, did District’s failure deny Student a free and appropriate public education by significantly impeding Parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding Students education? As remedies, Student seeks an order (i) finding District’s assessment was inappropriate, (ii) requiring District to provide an IEE of Student in the area of speech and language at public expense, (iii) requiring District to hold an individualized education program team meeting within 30 days to review the IEE, and (iv) compensatory speech and language services for District having impeded Parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision making process.

No changes are made to the schedule for hearing. All dates are to remain as set.