California OAH special education order · April 9, 2024
Order Clarifying Issues for Hearing
OAH Case No. 2023100526 · ALJ Linda Dowd
OAH restated 15 hearing issues, adding the issues from Student's amended prehearing statement after Los Angeles agreed they were already covered by Student's amended complaint.
This case went to decision
Student v. Los Angeles Unified School District: Los Angeles Unified must fund residential treatment, 254 compensatory hours, and an occupational therapy evaluation after stalled assessments. (2024)
Summary
After the prehearing conference order issued, Student filed an amended prehearing conference statement that expanded the issues for hearing. At the start of the April 9, 2024 hearing, Los Angeles agreed the added issues were already covered by Student's December 12, 2023 amended complaint. The ALJ reviewed the amended complaint, the amended statement, and the parties' discussion, then issued a restated list of 15 issues. The issues cover child find and evaluations, Parent participation, and goals, accommodations, services, and placement from October 16, 2021, through December 15, 2023.
Why it matters
A self-represented parent can refine the hearing issues after the prehearing conference if the new wording stays within the complaint. A district's agreement that the issues were already pleaded lets them go forward without a formal amendment.
People named in the order
- Chris Butchko, Administrative Law Judge (held prehearing conference)
- Patrick Balucan, Attorney for Los Angeles Unified School District
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,
v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2023100526
ORDER CLARIFYING ISSUES FOR HEARING
APRIL 9, 2024
On March 29, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Chris Butchko, 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. OAH issued an Order Following Prehearing Conference on April 3, 2024.
On April 8, 2024, Student filed an amended PHC statement expanding the issues clarified during the March 29, 2024, PHC.
ALJ Linda Dowd commended the due process hearing by videoconference on April 9, 2024. Parent appeared on behalf of Student. Attorney Patrick Balucan appeared on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District. At the outset of the hearing on April 9, 2024, the parties had a discussion to clarify the issues for hearing. During that discussion, Los Angeles agreed the issues Student raised in his amended PHC statement were encompassed in Student’s amended complaint filed on December 12, 2023. Based upon the ALJ’s review of the amended complaint, Student’s amended PHC statement, and the discussion with the parties, the ALJ issues the following Order which clarifies the issues for the due process hearing.
ISSUES
A free appropriate public education is referred to as a FAPE. An individualized education program is referred to as an IEP.
1. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE from October 16, 2021, through
December 15, 2023, when it failed to identify, locate, or evaluate Student as a child with disabilities?
2. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE from October 16, 2021, through
December 15, 2023, by failing to evaluate Student in a timely manner in all suspected areas of need and disability, specifically:
a. sensory processing,
b. executive functioning,
c. reading and written language,
d. occupational therapy needs,
e. mental health, or
f. functional behavior?
3. Did Los Angeles’s failure to identify, locate, or evaluate Student in all areas of
suspected disability from October 16, 2021, through December 15, 2023, deny Parent the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process?
4. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE from October 16, 2021, through the end
of the 2021-2022 school year, by failing to offer goals to meet Student’s needs for:
a. academics,
b. counseling,
c. behavior,
d. social skills, or
e. occupational therapy?
5. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE from October 16, 2021, through the end
of the 2021-2022 school year, by failing to offer and provide accommodations to meet Student’s needs for:
a. anxiety,
b. attention,
c. behavior,
d. depression,
e. executive functioning,
f. counseling,
g. occupational therapy, or
h. social skills?
6. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE from October 16, 2021, through the end
of the 2021-2022 school year, by failing to offer and provide services to meet Student’s needs for:
a. therapeutic counseling,
b. occupational therapy,
c. social skills, or
d. behavior?
7. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE from October 16, 2021, through the end
of the 2021-2022 school year, by failing to offer a placement to meet Student’s needs?
8. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year, by
failing to offer goals to meet Student’s needs for:
a. academics,
b. counseling,
c. behavior,
d. social skills, or
e. occupational therapy?
9. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year, by
failing to offer and provide accommodations to meet Student’s needs for:
a. anxiety,
b. attention,
c. behavior,
d. depression,
e. executive functioning,
f. counseling,
g. occupational therapy, or
h. social skills?
10. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year, by
failing to offer and provide services to meet Student’s needs for:
a. therapeutic counseling,
b. occupational therapy,
c. social skills, or
d. behavior?
11. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year, by
failing to offer a placement to meet Student’s needs?
12. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year
through December 15, 2023, by failing to offer goals to meet Student’s needs for:
a. academics,
b. counseling,
c. behavior,
d. social skills, or
e. occupational therapy?
13. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year
through December 15, 2023, by failing to offer and provide accommodations to meet Student’s needs for:
a. anxiety,
b. attention,
c. behavior,
d. depression,
e. executive functioning,
f. counseling,
g. occupational therapy, or
h. social skills?
14. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year
through December 15, 2023, by failing to offer and provide services to meet Student’s needs for:
a. therapeutic counseling,
b. occupational therapy,
c. social skills, or
d. behavior?
15. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year
through December 15, 2023, by failing to offer a placement to meet Student’s needs at the IEP team meetings held on:
a. September 22, 2023,
b. September 28, 2023,
c. November 2, 2023, and
d. December 6, 2023?
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Linda Dowd Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings