California OAH special education order · August 9, 2019
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Fontana's Issue Number Four
OAH Case No. 2019071246 · ALJ Cynthia Fritz
OAH found Fontana's issue four sufficient because it clearly asked whether the district's psychoeducational evaluation was legally compliant, so Student is not entitled to three independent evaluations at public expense, and gave enough facts.
Summary
Fontana filed a due process complaint, and Student challenged issue four as insufficient. That issue asks OAH to rule that Fontana's psychoeducational evaluation was legally compliant, so Student is not entitled to psychoeducational, visual impairment, and central auditory processing disorder independent educational evaluations (IEEs) at public expense. Fontana opposed the challenge. OAH found the issue sufficient because it identified the problem and a proposed resolution and gave Student enough facts to understand the issue and respond, and OAH confirmed all scheduled dates.
Why it matters
When a district files to defend its own evaluation and avoid paying for IEEs, a sufficiency challenge is unlikely to succeed if the complaint names the evaluation and the IEEs at issue. Parents should prepare to defend the merits of their IEE request instead.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
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:
FONTANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019071246
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
COMPLAINT AS TO FONTANA’S ISSUE NUMBER FOUR
On July 31, 2019, Fontana Unified School District filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Student. On August 6, 2019, Student filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to issue number four of Fontana’s complaint. On August 8, 2019, Fontana filed opposition to Student’s Notice of Insufficiency.
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
The facts alleged in Fontana’s issue number four of its complaint are sufficient. In issue number four of Fontana’s complaint, it requests OAH determine if its psychoeducational evaluation is legally compliant, such that Student is not entitled to psychoeducational, visual impairment, and central auditory processing disorder independent educational evaluations at public expense. Fontana identifies the issue and proposed resolution. Additionally, it provides sufficient facts in the complaint to give Student an awareness and understanding of the issue in order to respond. Therefore, issue number four of Fontana’s complaint is sufficient.
ORDER
1. Issue number four of Fontana’s 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 9, 2019 Cynthia Fritz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings