California OAH special education order · September 4, 2015
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2015090094 · ALJ June R. Lehrman
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because, read fairly, it gave the District notice of claims about a vision therapy assessment, the denial of vision therapy services, and parental participation, plus a proposed resolution.
This case went to decision
Student v. Rosedale Union Elementary School District: Rosedale Union Elementary predetermined its denial of vision therapy and must fund an independent assessment and interim therapy. (2016)
Summary
Rosedale Union Elementary School District challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint. The ALJ found that the complaint was not broken into separate claims, but a fair reading showed three issues. First, the District relied on an inappropriate vision therapy assessment done by Student's prior district. Second, the District denied a FAPE by not offering vision therapy at the August 25, 2015 IEP meeting. Third, the District denied parental participation by not properly considering Parents' concerns. The complaint's proposed resolution, vision therapy services, met the legal standard, so all mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
OAH reads complaints liberally. A complaint can survive a sufficiency challenge even when it is not organized into numbered claims, as long as the facts and the requested remedy give the district fair notice.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
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. 2015090094 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
ROSEDALE UNION ELEMENTARY COMPLAINT
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On August 31, 2015 Parents on behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) naming Rosedale Union Elementary School District. On September 2, 2015, District filed a Notice of Insufficiency.
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 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
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 District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Although not broken down into specific claims, a fair reading of the complaint reveals that Student is claiming that District (1) failed to appropriately assess Student for vision therapy, by relying upon an inappropriate assessment that had been conducted by Student’s prior school district; (2) denied Student a FAPE by not offering vision therapy services at the August 25, 2015, individualized education program team meeting; and (3) denied parental participation by not appropriately taking parents’ concerns into account at the IEP meeting. Therefore, Student’s statement of the claims is sufficient.
A complaint is required to include proposed resolutions to the problem, to the extent known and available to the party at the time. (20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).) Student has met the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to him, namely that he be provided with vision therapy services.
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).
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: September 04, 2015
/S /
JUNE R. LEHRMAN
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings