California OAH special education order · July 31, 2019

Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Issues One, Two and Three of Student's Amended Due Process Complaint

OAH Case No. 2019060457 · ALJ Rita Defilippis

OAH found Issues One through Three of Student's amended complaint sufficiently pled. The complaint gave Conejo Valley enough notice of the assessment claims to respond, prepare for hearing, and participate in resolution and mediation.

Complaint found sufficient Sufficiency of complaint

Summary

Conejo Valley challenged Issues One, Two, and Three of Student's amended complaint as insufficient. Issue One concerned the District's failure to fund or defend an independent educational evaluation. Issue Two concerned a requested functional behavior assessment, and Issue Three a requested psychoeducational assessment. OAH found all three sufficient because each described the problem, gave supporting facts, and proposed a resolution. That held even though Issue Three gave no time frame for Parent's request, since the District still had enough notice to respond.

Why it matters

Sufficiency is judged liberally, so a claim can survive a District challenge even when it leaves out a specific date. Parents should still include dates of assessment requests and the district's responses to avoid challenges.

Key authority cited

  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
  • Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
  • Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
  • 71 FR 46540-46541, 46699

Topics

sufficiency independent educational evaluation functional behavior assessment psychoeducational assessment assessment request

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,

v.

CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2019060457

ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF ISSUES ONE, TWO

AND THREE OF STUDENT’S AMENDED DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT

On July 15, 2019, Student filed an Amended Due Process Complaint with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Cornejo Valley Unified School District. On July 30, Cornejo Valley filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Issues One, Two, and Three of Student’s complaint.

APPLICABLE LAW

The named parties have the right to challenge the complaint’s sufficiency.

(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:

1. describes the problem relating to the proposed change regarding the

Student’s identification, evaluation, or educational placement, or providing the Student a free appropriate public education;

2. includes facts about the problem; and

3. includes a proposed resolution 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

Student’s amended complaint sets forth Issues One through Seven. Issues Four through Seven of Student’s amended complaint were not alleged to be insufficient and are not at issue in this order. Cornejo Valley asserts that Student’s Issues One, Two and Three of his amended complaint are insufficiently pled, as they fail to provide enough information for Cornejo Valley to prepare for hearing or participate in a resolution session or mediation. Student’s Issues One, Two and Three are sufficiently pled, as set forth below.

Student’s Issue One alleges that Cornejo Valley denied Student a free appropriate public education, often called a FAPE, by failing to respond to Parent’s request for an independent educational evaluation, by either funding the independent evaluation or filing for due process to defend the assessment without unreasonable delay. The facts of Student’s amended complaint state that Student requested an independent educational evaluation in May 2019, and that Cornejo Valley denied the request but did not file for due process to defend its March 2018 assessment. The facts of Student’s amended complaint state that the assessment that Cornejo Valley conducted in March 2018, was Student’s triennial assessment. Issue One of Student’s amended complaint sets forth the problem, a proposed resolution of an independent educational evaluation, and facts to support the allegation. Issue One is sufficiently pled.

Student’s Issue Two alleges that Cornejo Valley denied Student a FAPE by failing to reassess Student for a functional behavior assessment pursuant to Parent’s request.

Student’s amended complaint states that parent made a verbal request for a functional behavior assessment in November 2018 and again in May 2019. Student’s amended complaint sets forth facts explaining why a functional reassessment was requested.

Student’s issue Two is sufficiently pled as it sets forth the problem, facts supporting the allegation, and a proposed resolution.

Issue Three of the amended complaint alleges that Cornejo Valley denied Student a FAPE by failing conduct a psychoeducational assessment pursuant to Parent’s request.

Student’s amended complaint states that Parent requested a psychoeducational assessment, but the amended complaint did not set forth any specific time period of the alleged Parent request for a psychoeducational evaluation. However, Student stated enough information to put Cornejo Valley on notice of the problem and proposed resolution, for Cornejo Valley to provide a response to Issue Three and to prepare to discuss the issue in a resolution session and mediation.

Student’s Issues One, Two and Three are sufficiently pled to allow Cornejo Valley to respond to the amended complaint, prepare for hearing, and participate in a resolution session and mediation.

ORDER

1. Issues One, Two and Three of Student’s amended complaint are sufficiently

pled under section title 20 United States Code 1415(c)(2)(D).

2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are

confirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 31, 2019 Rita Defilippis Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings