California OAH special education order · August 2, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016080047 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the services allegedly missing from the 2016-2017 IEP and the relief sought, giving District enough notice to respond.
Summary
District filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint alleged that Student's IEP for the 2016-2017 school year, developed at meetings on April 14, May 2, and May 9, 2016, did not offer special education and related services Student needed. It asked for placement and services, including a therapeutic companion, speech and language, occupational therapy, physical therapy, adaptive physical education, vision services, and assistive technology. OAH held that the complaint identified the issues and enough related facts for District to respond and take part in resolution and mediation, and it confirmed all scheduled dates.
Why it matters
A complaint that names the IEP meetings involved, the services that were not offered, and the services requested is generally enough to survive a sufficiency challenge. OAH reads pleadings liberally.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
- 71 FR 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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2016080047 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
GARVEY SCHOOL DISTRICT. COMPLAINT
On July 15, 2016, Student filed a due process hearing request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Garvey School District. On July 29, 2016, District filed a notice of insufficiency 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. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c).) 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. (20 U.S.C.
§ 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV).) These 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. (See H.R.Rep. No. 108-77, 1st Sess. (2003), p. 115; Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1st Sess. (2003), pp. 34-35.)
The complaint provides enough information when it provides “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.” (Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, supra, at p. 34.) 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 1 A request for a due process hearing under Education Code section 56502 is the due process complaint notice required under title 20 U.S.C. section 1415(b)(7)(A).
it authorizes. (Alexandra R. ex rel. Burke v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H., Sept. 10, 2009, CIV. 06-CV-0215-JL) 2009 WL 2957991[nonpub. opn.]; Escambia County Bd. 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, 8:04CV2657T24EAJ) 2005 WL 2850076 [nonpub. opn.]; but cf. M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. Bd. of Educ. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx.
772, 775 [nonpub. opn.].) Whether the complaint is sufficient is a matter within the sound discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. (Assistance to States for the Educ. of Children with Disabilities & Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities (Aug. 14, 2006) 71 FR 46,540-46541, 46699.)
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. The complaint alleges that Student required special education and related services specified in the complaint that were not offered to Student in his individualized education program for the 2016-2017 school year, developed in team meetings on April 14, May 2, and May 9, 2016. The complaint seeks placement and services as alleged, including a therapeutic companion, speech and language services, occupational therapy, physical therapy, adaptive physical education, vision services, and assistive technology. 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. Accordingly, Student’s statement of claims and proposed resolutions 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: August 2, 2016
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings