California OAH special education order · March 16, 2018
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2018030407 · ALJ Jackie C. Dai
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it described District's refusal to reimburse costs under a prior settlement agreement, gave supporting facts, and proposed resolutions, giving District enough notice to respond.
Summary
District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint alleged District denied Student a FAPE by refusing to reimburse Student's guardian for teachers and aides under a March 2017 settlement agreement, and by refusing to reimburse future educational payments. OAH found the complaint identified the issues, gave adequate facts, and proposed resolutions, including staff training, reimbursement, and an escrow account for future expenses. It ruled the complaint sufficient and confirmed all dates.
Why it matters
A short complaint that clearly explains the problem, the key facts, and the remedy wanted can survive a sufficiency challenge. OAH reads pleadings liberally, including claims about a district's failure to reimburse under a prior settlement.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
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. 2018030407 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
LAKE TAHOE UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On March 09, 2018, Guardian on behalf of Student (Student) filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Lake Tahoe Unified School District. On March 15, 2018, 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 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).
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 is sixteen years old and resides with his Guardian within District. Student is also a person with epilepsy, developmental delay, and a significant speech and language disorder who is eligible for special education from District. Due to his condition of epilepsy, he is taking medication which has multiple side effects that can impact his learning and interpersonal interactions at school. Student had previously filed a due process complaint that was resolved pursuant to a settlement agreement which was executed by Student and District on March 22, 2017. Student has made requests of District to be reimbursed from May 2018 to September 2018 pursuant to this settlement agreement. However, all of Student’s requests were denied by District.
In sum, the complaint alleges District denied Student a free appropriate public education, when they refused to reimburse Guardian for Student’s teachers and aides, and, among other things, by refusing to reimburse Guardian for future payments to provide Student an appropriate education.
Student’s proposed resolutions include an order that District denied Student a FAPE, staff training, reimbursements and an escrow account for future educational expenses.
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. Lastly, Student also identified proposed resolutions to the problem.
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: March 16, 2018
JACKIE C. DAI
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings