California OAH special education order · September 19, 2024
Order Clarifying Issues for Hearing
OAH Case No. 2024010524 · ALJ Laurie Gorsline
OAH restated Student's claims against Los Angeles Unified as ten hearing issues after discussing them with the parties on the first two days of hearing and reviewing the complaint.
This case went to decision
Student v. Los Angeles Unified School District: Los Angeles Unified prevails on all 13 claims by a high-achieving autistic student; missing prior written notice found harmless. (2025)
Summary
The due process hearing began on September 17 and 18, 2024. During preliminary matters, the ALJ and the parties discussed what issues would be heard. Based on that discussion and a further review of the complaint, OAH issued an order restating ten issues. They cover assessments (a three-year psychoeducational review, educationally related mental health, and recreational therapy), behavior aide support and transition plans in the March 2022, February 2023, and October 2023 IEPs, failure to implement transition services, prior written notice about a denied request for compensatory services, and predetermination of the decision to exit Student from special education.
Why it matters
The ALJ can restate the issues at the start of hearing, and only the issues as restated will be decided. Self-represented parents should make sure every claim in their complaint is captured accurately during this discussion.
People named in the order
- Kara Hatfield, Administrative Law Judge (prehearing conference)
- Brian Davenport, Attorney for Los Angeles Unified
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 2024010524
ORDER CLARIFIYING ISSUES FOR HEARING
SEPTEMBER 19, 2024
On January 16, 2024, the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, received a due process hearing request from Parent, naming Los Angeles Unified School District, called Los Angeles Unified.
On August 19, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Kara Hatfield held a prehearing conference by videoconference. On August 20. 2024, OAH issued an Order Following Prehearing Conference.
Administrative Law Judge Laurie Gorsline heard this matter by videoconference on September 17 and 18, 2024. Parent represented Student. Attorney Brian Davenport represented Los Angeles Unified.
On both September 17 and 18, 2024, the parties and Administrative Law Judge conducted preliminary matters, including a discussion clarifying the issues for hearing.
Based upon the discussion with the parties on September 18, 2024, and the Administrative Law Judge’s further review of the complaint, OAH issues the following order clarifying the issues at the due process hearing. A free appropriate education is called a FAPE. An individualized education program is called an IEP.
ISSUES
1. Did Los Angeles Unified deny Student a FAPE by failing from
January 16, 2022, through the filing of Student’s complaint to conduct a three-year-review psychoeducational assessment?
2. Did Los Angeles Unified deny Student a FAPE by failing from
January 16, 2022, through the filing of Student’s complaint to assess Student’s educationally related mental health?
3. Did Los Angeles Unified deny Student a FAPE from March 16, 2022,
through February 27, 2023, by failing in the March 16, 2022 IEP to:
A. Offer Student sufficient behavior aide support and supervision? B. Offer Student an adequate individual transition plan?
4. Did Los Angeles Unified deny Student a FAPE by materially failing to
implement the transition services of Student’s March 16, 2022 IEP?
5. Did Los Angeles Unified deny Student a FAPE from February 27, 2023,
through the filing of Student’s complaint by failing in the February 27, 2023 IEP to:
A. Offer Student sufficient behavior aide support and supervision? B. Offer Student an adequate individual transition plan?
6. Did Los Angeles Unified deny Student a FAPE by materially failing to
implement the transition services of Student’s February 27, 2023 IEP?
7. Did Los Angeles Unified deny Student a FAPE by failing to assess Student
for recreational therapy as requested by Parent at the February 27, 2023 IEP team meeting?
8. Did Los Angeles Unified deny Student a FAPE by failing to provide Parent a
prior written notice regarding its denial of Parent’s February 27, 2023, request for compensatory educational services?
9. Did Los Angeles Unified deny Student a FAPE by predetermining the
October 30, 2023 IEP to exit Student from special education and related services?
10. Did Los Angeles Unified deny Student a FAPE from October 30, 2023,
through the filing of Student’s complaint by failing in the October 30, 2023 IEP to:
A. Offer Student sufficient behavior aide support and supervision? B. Offer Student an adequate individual transition plan?
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Laurie Gorsline Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings