California OAH special education order · August 27, 2021
Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference
OAH Case No. 2021040393, 2021020664 · ALJ Marlo Nisperos
OAH dismissed three of Student's six prehearing issues as outside its jurisdiction and set the remaining Student and Enterprise issues for a September 21, 2021 videoconference hearing.
This case went to decision
Student v. Enterprise Elementary School District (consolidated): Enterprise Elementary must fund 104 hours of in-home services and a health IEE after its virtual-only offer denied FAPE. (2022)
Summary
At a prehearing conference in these consolidated cases, the ALJ found that Student's issues one, three, and four, from Student's prehearing conference statement, were not within OAH's jurisdiction and dismissed them. The order does not say what those issues were. The remaining Student issues go to hearing: whether Enterprise failed to implement Student's IEP on time, offered only virtual services as the initial placement, and failed to timely complete a medical assessment, covering April 2019 through May 19, 2021. The hearing will also decide Enterprise's issues: whether its February 24, 2020 IEP offers a FAPE so it can implement the IEP over parental objection, and whether it may conduct a health/medical assessment without releases to talk with Student's doctors. The order sets the hearing for September 21 through 23, 2021, with no hearing from September 24 to October 1 because of counsel's vacation, and lays out rules for exhibits, witnesses, and recordings.
Why it matters
Issues listed in a prehearing conference statement can be cut at the PHC if OAH decides they fall outside its jurisdiction, so families should make sure every claim is framed as an IDEA/FAPE issue. Districts can also ask OAH to approve implementing an IEP or doing an assessment over parent objection.
Key authority cited
- J.W. v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 431
- Ford v. Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2002) 291 F.3d 1086
- M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189
- Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49
- Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (e)(7)
- Ed. Code § 56505.1, subd. (h)
People named in the order
- Kelly Carter, Student's doctor
- Frances Paola Verlez-Bartolomei, Student's doctor
- Nikika Singhal, Student's doctor
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 CONSOLIDATED MATTERS OF:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
and
ENTERPRISE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021040393
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021020664
ORDER FOLLOWING PREHEARING CONFERENCE FOR
HEARING BY VIDEOCONFERENCE
AUGUST 27, 2021
On August 27, 2021, Administrative Law Judge Marlo Nisperos, Office of Administrative Hearings, held a prehearing conference by videoconference. The Administrative Law Judge is called an ALJ. The Office of Administrative Hearings is called OAH. The prehearing conference is called a PHC.
Tania Whiteleather, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Student. Kyle Raney, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Enterprise Elementary School District. Kaitlyn Tucker, Attorney at Law, was present on behalf of Enterprise. The PHC was recorded.
Based upon discussion with the parties, the ALJ issues the following order:
HEARING DATES, TIMES, AND LOCATION
DUE PROCESS HEARING
The hearing will take place on September 21, 2021, through September 23, 2021 and continue day to day at the discretion of the ALJ. The hearing shall begin at 9:30 AM each day and generally end at 3:30 PM, unless otherwise ordered. The parties anticipate it will take up to four days to complete the hearing. Additional hearing dates will be discussed with the ALJ during the hearing.
Ms. Whiteleather is unavailable for hearing from September 24, 2021 to October 1, 2021 due to a prepaid vacation. If the hearing does not conclude on September 23, 2021, proceedings will be dark from September 24, 2021 through October, 1, 2021, and resume the following week.
HEARING LOCATION
OAH is authorized to conduct due process hearings by videoconference or telephone. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (g).) OAH will conduct the due process hearing by videoconference using the Microsoft Teams application. Unless otherwise ordered, participants are required to appear by videoconference using a webcam and Microsoft Teams.
The parties shall immediately notify all potential witnesses of the hearing dates and shall subpoena witnesses, if necessary, to ensure that the witnesses will appear to testify. A party’s failure to notify or subpoena a witness to testify will not be considered good cause to continue the hearing. Instructions for issuing and responding to subpoenas and optional forms for subpoenas can be found on the website at https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OAH/Case-Types/Special- Education/Forms/Subpoenas?search=special%20education%20subpoena.
ISSUES AND PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
The issues at the due process hearing, and proposed resolutions, as alleged in the complaint and clarified by the parties and the ALJ during the PHC are:
The ALJ has slightly altered the statement of some issues as allowed by the holdings in J.W. v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 431, 442-443, and Ford v. Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2002) 291 F.3d 1086, 1090. (But see M.C.
v. Antelope Valley Union High Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189, 1196, fn. 2 [dictum].) No change in substance has been made. A party believing that an issue has been misstated or omitted shall promptly file a notice in writing stating its concern and citing relevant allegations in the complaint by page and lines.
Student alleged six claims in their prehearing conference statement. Student’s issues one, three, and four are dismissed as they are not within OAH’s jurisdiction. The remaining issues are renumbered below.
The issues at the due process hearing and proposed resolutions, as alleged in the complaint and clarified by the parties and the ALJ during the PHC are:
ISSUES
STUDENT’S ISSUES:
1. Did Enterprise Elementary School District deny Student a free appropriate
public education, called FAPE, from April 9, 2019 through the end of the 2019-2020 school year by:
a. failing to implement Student’s individualized education program,
referred to as IEP, in a timely manner; and
b. failing to offer an appropriate initial placement, specifically by
offering to provide services virtually.
2. Did Enterprise deny Student a FAPE during the 2020-2021 school year
through May 19, 2021, by:
a. failing to implement Student’s IEP in a timely manner;
b. failing to offer an appropriate initial placement, specifically by
offering to provide services virtually; and
c. failing to timely complete the medical assessment consented to on
March 1, 2021?
DISTRICT’S ISSUES:
1. Does the February 24, 2020 IEP offer Student a FAPE such that Enterprise
may implement services and deliver services over parental objection?
2. May Enterprise conduct a health/medical assessment of Student by a
licensed physician, without conditional releases to communicate with doctors Kelly Carter, Frances Paola Verlez-Bartolomei, and Nikika Singhal, regarding Student’s educationally-related health needs?
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
The resolutions requested by Student include in-home, in–person services, re- evaluation to determine further placement and services, and compensatory education.
Enterprise filed its response to Student’s amended complaint on May 24, 2021.
(M.C. v. Antelope Valley Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189, 1199-1200.)
EXHIBITS
The parties shall upload their exhibits electronically according to the Order Setting Procedures for Filing Exhibits Electronically.
The parties shall serve their exhibits on each other in compliance with Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7). Timely uploading electronic hearing exhibits five business days before the first day of hearing constitutes that party’s timely exchange of evidence on each other in compliance with Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7).
Except for good cause shown, or unless used solely for rebuttal or impeachment, any exhibit not timely exchanged as required by Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7) shall not be admitted into evidence at the hearing unless the ALJ rules that it is admissible.
IDENTIFYING EXHIBITS AND PAGE NUMBERS
Each exhibit must be identified by a letter and number. Student must use the letter S before the number to identify Student’s exhibits. Enterprise must use the letter D before the number to identify Enterprise’s exhibits. For example, S-1 means Student’s exhibit 1 and D-1 means Enterprise’s exhibit 1. A cover sheet with this identifying letter and number should be the first page of each exhibit. The electronic evidence program will automatically number the exhibits and additional page numbering or bates stamping should not be added.
CONTENT
Each exhibit must consist of one document. Separate documents may not be combined into one exhibit. Emails or letters may be consolidated into one exhibit if they are part of a single chain of messages. Exhibits should be in chronological order.
Parties should include resumes or curriculum vitae for each witness who is expected to testify as an expert.
Enterprise’s exhibits must include a copy of the school calendar for each school year in question.
Electronic copies of exhibits filed with OAH shall be filed by 5:00 PM at least five business days before the first day of hearing. Please refer to the General Order OAH issued with the Scheduling Order that contains the Order Setting Procedures for Filing Exhibits Electronically. It includes instructions for how to file exhibits electronically.
Beginning three business days before the hearing, the electronic evidence system will not allow parties to upload exhibits unless permitted by the ALJ during the hearing at the ALJ’s discretion.
WITNESSES
The parties shall serve their list of witnesses on each other in compliance with Education Code section 56505. No party shall be permitted to call any witnesses not timely disclosed except for good cause shown, supported by written declaration under penalty of perjury, and at the discretion of the ALJ.
Parties are responsible for ensuring that all participants are familiar with and follow the Instructions for Joining the Online Due Process Hearing provided with this Order. Participants that have not previously used the MS Teams platform, may also find informative videos available like the one at this link from Microsoft:
https://support.office.com/en-us/article/join-a-teams-meeting-078e9868-f1aa-4414- 8bb9-ee88e9236ee4.
The parties are responsible for ensuring that witnesses join the virtual hearing room at the designated date and time to testify. Witnesses are required to join the due process hearing by computer and appear by videoconference unless they do not have the necessary computer equipment. If a witness does not have the necessary equipment, the ALJ may permit the witnesses to appear by audio only or by telephone.
“Audio only” means using a computer without webcam. Witness ability to attend the hearing by videoconference will be discussed at the start of the hearing.
The parties are responsible for producing their own witnesses unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ. Parties shall make witnesses under their control reasonably available. The parties must schedule their witnesses to avoid delays in the hearing and to minimize or eliminate the need for calling witnesses out of order. Neither party will be permitted to call any witnesses not timely disclosed except for good cause shown, and at the discretion of the ALJ.
The ALJ has discretion to limit the number of witnesses and the time allowed for witnesses’ testimony. Education Code, section 56505.1, subdivision (h), empowers the ALJ to set a reasonable limit on the length of the hearing after consideration of four factors. The first two factors are the issues to be heard and the complexity of facts to be proven. The second two factors are the ability of the parties or their representatives to present their respective cases and the parties’ estimates of the time needed to present their cases.
MEET AND CONFER
The parties are encouraged to review and shorten their witness and exhibit lists before the hearing. Evidence may be excluded if it is repetitive, cumulative, or insufficiently probative to justify the time it would take to hear.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer no later than September 17, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. to discuss scheduling witnesses and how much time each witness will take.
The parties shall discuss any issues related to counsel and witnesses appearing by videoconference for hearing and electronically viewing exhibits during the hearing, or subpoenas, if any. The parties should attempt to eliminate duplicate exhibits from their hearing exhibits. The parties shall discuss whether they can produce a written stipulation as to pertinent facts, contentions, resolutions and authenticity and admissibility of documents to shorten the length of time needed for the hearing.
As part of the meet and confer process, Enterprise shall inform Student which proposed witnesses are district employees. Enterprise shall also identify the witnesses on Student’s list that require a subpoena. Enterprise may agree to accept service for witnesses under Enterprise’s control or provide Student with the witness’ most recent contact information.
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FORM
Both parties have an ongoing obligation to ensure that OAH has current information on the Participant Information Form filed with OAH and shall file an updated Form as necessary. The Participant Information Form is not served upon the opposing party. The ongoing obligation to ensure that the Participant Information Form filed with OAH is current does not change the parties’ statutory obligation to timely disclose their witnesses to the other party(s) at least five business days prior to hearing.
The parties must file an updated Participant Information Form to inform OAH of any changes, additions, or deletions, including the required information no later than 5:00 PM at least two business days before the first day of hearing.
Any contact information provided shall be used for the limited purpose of issuing subpoenas or for contacting the witness(es) for purposes of attending the hearing and shall not be disclosed to any other person(s).
EVIDENCE PRESENTATION
In an administrative proceeding, the burden of proof is ordinarily on the party requesting the hearing. (Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49, 62.) In this consolidated matter, each side has the burden of proof on the issues in its filed case. Student’s case-in-chief shall be presented first, followed by Enterprise, unless otherwise ordered.
WITNESS LISTS
The parties must provide a joint proposed witness list to the ALJ on the first day of hearing. The list should include the first and last name of the witness, which party(s)
are calling the witness to testify, and include dates and time estimates of each witness’ expected testimony. In the event an agreement cannot be reached, each party shall prepare a separate written list. Enterprise must have witnesses available in case there is no agreement.
At the beginning of the hearing, the ALJ and the parties will discuss the length of time anticipated for each witness and scheduling issues for individual witnesses. The ALJ will finalize the witness schedule. Parties must be prepared at the end of each day to discuss the witnesses to be presented the next day and the estimated time for the testimony each witness.
SCOPE OF WITNESS EXAMINATION
Each witness will be called to testify only once, except for rebuttal purposes. All parties must examine witness on all issues when the witness is first called. Requiring a witness to appear only once takes priority over the order in which parties present their case in chief.
AUDIO ONLY OR TELEPHONIC TESTIMONY
Whether a witness may appear by audio only or telephone instead of videoconference is a matter within the discretion of the ALJ. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (g).) Any party seeking to present a witness by audio only or telephone shall request permission to do so before the hearing. Any party seeking to present a witness who cannot access exhibits electronically must inform the ALJ at the beginning of the hearing.
ELECTRONIC RECORDINGS
AUDIO RECORDING
A party may request permission to make an audio recording of the hearing.
Permission to make an audio recording is subject to the ALJ’s discretion and based upon certain conditions. The conditions are:
• the OAH recording is the only official recording;
• participants shall not use Teams to record the hearing;
• the parties shall turn their recording device on and off at the same time
that the ALJ is on and off the record to avoid recording conversations while off the record;
• operation of the party’s recording mechanism will not be allowed to delay
the hearing;
• a parties’ recording may not be given, provided or played to a witness, or
potential witness; and
• the recording is subject to the same confidentiality as the due process
hearing;
• use of the chat function in the videoconference is prohibited and shall not
be part of the official record;
• participants shall not take screenshots of the videoconference or share or
publish any portion of the videoconference or audio recording.
Both parties’ request to record the hearing is granted, subject to these conditions.
VIDEO RECORDING
No party, witness or anyone else may make any video recording of any part of the proceedings or stream live through any means.
RECORDINGS AS EXHIBITS
Student proposes to introduce all or part of a recording of an individualized education program team meeting. Recordings may not be uploaded electronically without the ALJ’s permission. The ALJ has discretion to admit or exclude evidence in the form of a recording. Any request to submit a recording shall be considered at the time of hearing.
The ALJ may grant or deny the request or grant the request subject to certain conditions. The party offering the recording must establish that all or a part of the recording is relevant. The ALJ may request a transcript of the portion of the recording requested or have the party offering the recording to provide an exact identifiable portion of the recording the party seeks to admit. The identities of any person speaking on the portion of the tape being introduced must be established. An ALJ may allow the opposing party to offer additional portions of a recording to establish the context, or to rebut, the recording.
COMPENSATORY EDUCATION OR REIMBURSEMENT
Any party seeking reimbursement for expenditures shall present admissible evidence of these expenditures, or a stipulation to the amount of the expenditures. A party seeking compensatory education should provide evidence regarding the type, amount, duration, and need for any requested compensatory education. Documents offered as evidence to support a request for reimbursement must be separated by vendor.
MOTIONS
Ms. Whiteleather provided notice she is scheduled to commence a due process hearing that will result in her being unavailable to proceed to hearing in this matter.
Counsel was advised that she has the opportunity to file a motion to continue this matter if she is unavailable due to being engaged in hearing.
No prehearing motions are pending or contemplated. Any motion that was not filed three business days before the PHC, shall be supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury establishing good cause why the motion was not timely filed.
STIPULATIONS
Stipulations to pertinent facts, contentions, resolutions and authenticity and admissibility of documents are encouraged. Any proposed stipulation shall be submitted to the assigned ALJ in writing prior to the start of the hearing.
CONDUCT OF COUNSEL AND HEARING ROOM DECORUM
All participants to the videoconference should observe the same decorum as in an in-person due process hearing. Counsel, all parties, and all witnesses must conduct themselves in a professional and courteous manner at all times. Cellular phones, telephones and computer notifications must be shut off or set to silent during the hearing unless the ALJ grants permission otherwise. Counsel, parties, and witnesses should appear from a private location, unless otherwise ordered. Participants should take reasonable efforts to minimize background noise and maintain adequate room lighting. Use of virtual background images are at the discretion of the ALJ. Witnesses are prohibited from reading exhibits, documents, notes, text messages, telephones or computers while testifying, unless permitted to do so by the ALJ. Parties, counsel and witnesses are prohibited from passing notes to, exchanging electronic messages with, or signaling the witness in any way while the witness is testifying.
LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS
The parties have not requested the assistance of an interpreter.
A party or participant in this case, such as a witness, requiring reasonable accommodation to participate in a mediation or hearing may contact OAH at (916) 263-0880, or send an email to OAHADA@dgs.ca.gov as soon as the need is known. The e-mail should have “Request for Accommodation” in the Subject Line.
Additional information concerning requests for reasonable accommodation is available on OAH’s website at: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OAH/Services/Page-Content/Office-of- Administrative-Hearings-Services-List-Folder/Accommodations-at-OAH.
HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
The hearing is open to the public. Special Education hearings are closed to the public unless Student requests the hearing to be open to the public.
An ALJ may restrict attendance because of the physical limitations of the hearing facility or take other action to promote due process or the orderly conduct of the hearing. (Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 1, § 1030.) Government Code, section 11425.20 empowers the ALJ to order an open hearing to be closed or make other protective orders to the extent necessary or proper to ensure a fair hearing in the circumstances of the case. Currently, amid COVID-19 concerns, all hearings are being conducted via videoconference without observers present or participating in the videoconference.
OAH will provide the hearing recording upon request.
SETTLEMENT
The parties are encouraged to continue working together to reach an agreement before the due process hearing. The parties shall inform OAH in writing immediately if they reach a settlement or otherwise resolve the dispute before the scheduled hearing.
In addition, if a settlement is reached within five days of the scheduled start of the due process hearing, the parties shall also inform OAH of the settlement by telephone at (916) 263-0880. At the same time, the parties should send the signature page of the signed agreement or a letter withdrawing the case to OAH at https://www.applications.dgs.ca.gov/oah/oahsftweb.
If a full and final written settlement agreement is reached after 4:00 PM the day prior to hearing, the parties shall leave a voicemail message regarding the settlement at (916) 274-6035. The parties should also leave contact information such as cellular phone numbers of each party or counsel for each party.
Dates for hearing will not be cancelled until the letter of withdrawal or signature page of the signed agreement has been received and processed by OAH. If an agreement in principle is reached, the parties should plan to attend the scheduled hearing unless different arrangements have been agreed upon by the assigned ALJ. The assigned ALJ will check for messages before the hearing.
If the matter settles subject to board approval, in addition to a signed copy of the signature page of the settlement agreement, the parties shall provide the date of the next board meeting. The hearing dates will not be cancelled without this information.
FAILURE TO COMPLY
The failure to comply with this Order may result in the exclusion of evidence or other sanctions.
ORDER INCLUDES ALL RULINGS
This Order includes all rulings made at the prehearing conference. Any discussion and conversation not referenced in this Order is not binding on the ALJ conducting the hearing and may not be relied upon by the parties. The parties should be aware that, at hearing, the ALJ conducting the hearing has discretion to reconsider any part of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Marlo Nisperos Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings
