California OAH special education order · September 26, 2017
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017090353 · ALJ June Lehrman
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It clearly described District's failure to hold an IEP meeting, implement a transfer IEP, and resume home hospital services, even though one claim left out the year.
Summary
District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. Student had enrolled around November 2016 with a prior district's IEP that provided home hospital services. The complaint alleged that District failed to hold a requested IEP meeting, did not provide all of the prior IEP's services, assessed Student without proper consent, and stopped services over the summer without resuming them. OAH found the complaint sufficient because it gave District enough notice of the issues, facts, and proposed resolutions; the missing year in claim three could reasonably be understood as summer 2017.
Why it matters
Complaints are read liberally, so small gaps such as a missing year will not make a complaint insufficient if the meaning can reasonably be inferred. Parents who state each problem, the related facts, and a proposed fix can usually keep their hearing dates.
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. 2017090353 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On September 12, 2017, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint)
with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Anaheim Union High School District.
On September 25, 2017, 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 District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student alleges that he enrolled in District on or around November 1, 2016 with an individualized educational program from a prior school district providing for home hospital services. Student’s first claim alleges that Parent asked District to hold an IEP team meeting and that District did not do so. Student seeks as a resolution that District should hold an IEP team meeting. In claim two, Student alleges that although District proceeded to provide home hospital services to Student without holding an IEP team meeting, District did not provide other special education services called for in the prior IEP. Claim two also states that the home hospital teacher assessed Student without proper parental consent to the assessment, and it states factual allegations pertaining to the consent that would require evidentiary findings at hearing. As a resolution, Student requests implementation of the prior IEP’s offer of services. In claim three, Student alleges that District discontinued Student’s services in the summer of an unstated year, and failed to resume them after the summer. The failure to state the year in claim three does not render the complaint insufficient. It can reasonably be inferred that the summer of 2017 is at issue.
As a resolution, Student requests the resumption of home hospital services.
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. Therefore, Student’s statement of the claims 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: September 26, 2017
JUNE LEHRMAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings