California OAH special education order · September 8, 2017
Amendment to Order Following Prehearing Conference
OAH Case No. 2017041138 · ALJ Darrell Lepkowsky
OAH redefined Student's hearing issues at the start of hearing because the prehearing conference order's issue list did not fully match Student's complaint; both parties agreed to the restated issues.
This case went to decision
Student v. Los Angeles Unified School District: Los Angeles Unified must reimburse $42,990 in private school tuition after delaying assessment and wrongly finding a high-achieving student ineligible. (2017)
Summary
At the start of the due process hearing, Student said the issues listed in the Order Following Prehearing Conference did not fully match his complaint and asked that they be redefined. After reviewing the complaint and discussing it with the parties, the ALJ restated the issues as agreed by Student and District. The restated issues cover child find, assessments in all areas of suspected disability, review of third-party assessments, timely eligibility IEP meetings, written FAPE offers in the September and October 2016 IEPs, and failure to find Student eligible, all from April 25, 2015 through the 2016-2017 school year.
Why it matters
Parents should check that the prehearing order's issue list matches their complaint. If it does not, they can raise the problem at the start of hearing and get the issues corrected, which matters because only the listed issues are heard.
People named in the order
- Cole Dalton, Administrative Law Judge who held the prehearing conference
- Henry Tovmassian, Attorney for Student
- Karl Widell, Attorney for District
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. 2017041138 v. AMENDMENT TO ORDER
FOLLOWING PREHEARING
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL CONFERENCE
DISTRICT.
On August 25, 2017, a telephonic prehearing conference was held before Administrative Law Judge Cole Dalton, Office of Administrative Hearings. Henry Tovmassian, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Student. Karl Widell, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District. Among other matters, the ALJ reviewed the issues presented in Student’s due process complaint. The ALJ issued an Order Following Prehearing Conference dated August 30, 2017, which included a list of the issues for hearing pursuant to discussion with the parties at the PHC.
The hearing in this case started on September 5, 2017. At the beginning of the hearing, Student stated that the issues in the Order Following Prehearing Conference did not fully coincide with his complaint. Student requested that the issues be redefined for hearing.
After review of Student’s complaint and discussion with the parties, Student’s issues for hearing are redefined as follows, as agreed to by Student and District:
(1) Whether District denied Student a free appropriate public education by:
(a) Failing to meet its child find obligation to him from April 25, 2015, through the end of the 2016-2017 school year; and (b) Failing to conduct timely and appropriate assessments in all areas related to Student’s suspected disability, including (i) intellectual functioning, including areas of attention; concentration; executive functioning; information processing;
visual/perceptual skills; and memory functioning, including verbal and non-verbal memory;
(ii) language processing, including development and use; (iii) academic functioning;
(iv) gross and fine motor functioning and sensory integration; (v) social-emotional functioning; and (vi) behavior from April 25, 2015 through the 2016 – 2017 school year? (2) Whether District committed procedural violations, which denied Student a FAPE by:
(a) Failing to timely review and consider third party assessments;
(b) Failing to hold timely individual education program team meetings to determine Student’s eligibility for special education;
(c) Failing to meet its child find obligations to Student from April 25, 2015, through the end of the 2016-2017 school year; and (c) Failing to make a formal, specific, written offer of FAPE in the IEPs of (i) September 15, 2016 and (ii) October 17, 2016? (3) Whether District denied Student a FAPE from April 25, 2015, though the end of the 2016-2017 school year by failing to find him eligible for special education and related services, and develop an appropriate IEP for him to address all of his unique needs?
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: September 8, 2017
DARRELL LEPKOWSKY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings