California OAH special education order · May 4, 2026
Order Confirming Issues for Hearing
OAH Case No. 2026031218, 2026020438 · ALJ Ashok Pathi
OAH confirmed eleven issues for the consolidated hearing after Student objected to how two issues were clarified, finding the clarification made no change in substance.
This case went to decision
Student v. Walnut Valley Unified School District (consolidated): Walnut Valley Unified must fund four IEEs and translate an assessment report into Mandarin; most of the parent's claims denied. (2026)
Summary
After a prehearing conference, the ALJ clarified and reorganized the issues in both Walnut Valley's and Student's complaints, and Student objected to two of the clarified issues. The ALJ addressed the objections on the record on the first day of hearing. The ALJ then confirmed the issues. Walnut Valley's issue is whether its March 2024 multidisciplinary assessment was appropriate, which would defeat Parent's request for independent evaluations. Student's ten issues cover speech and language goals and services, the occupational therapy assessment and services, prior written notice, Parent participation including Mandarin translation and informed consent, and a requested grade retention.
Why it matters
OAH may reword and reorganize a party's issues at the prehearing conference, as long as the substance does not change. Families should review the PHC order closely and object promptly if a clarified issue does not capture their claim.
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
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 INVOLVING:
WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
and
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026031218
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026020438
ORDER CONFIRMING ISSUES FOR HEARING
MAY 4, 2026
On April 13, 2026, the Office of Administrative Hearings, held a prehearing conference by videoconference. The Office of Administrative Hearings is called OAH.
The prehearing conference is called a PHC.
During the PHC, the Administrative Law Judge, called an ALJ, had a lengthy discussion with the parties and clarified the issues in both parties’ complaints 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 was made.
Following the PHC, Student filed an objection to two of the issues as clarified and reorganized in the PHC order. The ALJ addressed Student’s objections on the record on the first day of the hearing. The ALJ confirmed the following issues for the hearing.
A free appropriate public education is called a FAPE. An individualized education program is called an IEP.
WALNUT VALLEY’S ISSUE
1. Was the March 25, 2024, Multidisciplinary Assessment appropriate, such
that Walnut Valley is not required to fund independent educational evaluations in psychoeducation, speech and language, occupational therapy, and adapted physical education?
STUDENT’S ISSUES
2. Did Walnut Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer speech and
language goals to address Student’s functional communication, self- advocacy, and safety-related expressive language needs, and revise those goals as necessary between February 9, 2024, and February 9, 2026?
3. Did Walnut Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer speech and
language services to address Student’s functional communication, self- advocacy, and safety-related expressive language needs, and revise those services as necessary between February 9, 2024, and February 9, 2026?
4. Did Walnut Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to conduct an adequate
occupational therapy assessment, dated March 2024?
5. Did Walnut Valley deny Student a FAPE, by significantly impeding Parent’s
ability to participate in the IEP process, or by causing a deprivation of educational benefit, by failing to provide Parent with prior written notice of its decision to not offer occupational therapy services in the March
2024 IEP?
6. Did Walnut Valley deny Student a FAPE, by significantly impeding Parent’s
ability to participate in the IEP process, by failing to provide Parent with a copy of the March 2024 occupational therapy report, related data on Student’s occupational therapy needs, and a draft copy of the IEP prior to, or during, the March 2024 IEP team meeting?
7. Did Walnut Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer occupational
therapy services in the March 2024 IEP?
8. Did Walnut Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to provide Parent the March
2024 occupational therapy report and related data on Student’s occupational therapy needs in Mandarin verbally or in writing during the IEP team meeting or after such that Parent’s consent to the March 2024 IEP was not informed consent as defined by special education law?
9. Did Walnut Valley deny Student a FAPE, from March 25, 2024, through
February 9, 2026, by failing to offer adequate replacement supports when it no longer offered occupational therapy services which resulted in functional regression and safety-related incidents and/or elevated risk at school?
10. Did Walnut Valley deny Student a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year,
by failing to appropriately convene an IEP team meeting when Parent requested that Student be retained in fifth grade on November 20, 2025?
11. Did Walnut Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to retain Student in fifth
grade for the 2026-2027 school year?
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ashok Pathi Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings