California OAH special education order · December 5, 2016
Order Determining Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2016110657 · ALJ Marian H. Tully
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling it gave District enough notice of claims that District failed to address Student's autism- and ADHD-related behavior needs, including a BCBA-supervised one-to-one aide.
This case went to decision
Student v. Tehachapi Unified School District: Tehachapi Unified prevails on claims over an ABA-trained aide and BCBA supervision following an earlier OAH decision. (2017)
Summary
District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. OAH found the complaint sufficient. It identified Student's eligibility under autism and ADHD from a prior district's IEP and alleged that District held two IEP meetings since January 2016 without addressing Student's behavior needs, including a one-to-one aide supervised by a Board Certified Behavior Analyst. It also proposed resolutions, so District had enough information to respond, take part in resolution and mediation, and prepare for hearing. All scheduled dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint does not need to be technical to survive a sufficiency challenge. Plainly describing the disability, the unmet needs (such as a supervised aide), the relevant IEP meetings, and the remedy sought is enough under OAH's liberal pleading standard.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx. 772
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. 2016110657 v. ORDER DETERMINING COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT
TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On November 14, 2016, Student filed a Due Process Complaint with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Tehachapi Unified School District. On November 18, 2016, District timely 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 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 District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint identifies Student’s address, date of birth, grade and school of attendance. The complaint describes an individualized educational program from Student’s previous school district indicating his eligibility for special education under the categories of autism and attention deficit hyper activity disorder.
The complaint alleges District has held two IEP meetings since January 2016 but has failed to address Students behavior needs related to his disabilities, specifically including the provision of a one to one aide supervised by a Board Certified Behavior Analyst. Student’s proposed resolutions include an order requiring District to provide the supervised one to one aide and compensatory education.
The complaint states the problem as the issues and adequate related facts about the problem to permit District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session, mediation and to prepare for hearing. Therefore, Student’s 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: December 05, 2016
MARIAN H. TULLY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings