Hearing Officer Decisions 2001-2002

Refer also to Index of Issues

July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002

• Case #1—Reference # 02-001
  • Whether student's placement was appropriate?
• Case #2—Reference # 02-004
  • Whether division failed to provide FAPE?
  • Whether the division is obligated to pay for student's private residential placement?
• Case #3a—Reference # 02-005a
  • Whether proper safety measures in place to handle emergencies regarding student?
  • Whether appropriate classroom and extra-curricular accommodations made for student?
  • Whether student was receiving appropriate transportation services per IEP?
• Case #3b—Reference # 02-005b
  • Whether student had adequate access to school facilities?
• Case #4—Reference # 02-021
  • Whether specific placement necessary per IEP?
  • Whether social worker report is correct and whether it affects placement?
  • Whether the student was receiving appropriate transportation per IEP?
• Case #5—Reference # 02-019
  • Whether division failed to properly notify parents of test results?
  • Whether the division failed to implement student's IEP?
  • Whether student's IEP was appropriate?
  • Whether parents should be reimbursed for private funds used for student?
• Case #6—Reference # 02-018
  • Whether student's IEP should set forth specific Honors Program?
• Case #7—Reference # 02-033
  • Whether student should be placed in residential placement although parents have not consented to implementation of IEP?
• Case #8—Reference # 02-043
  • Whether student's special education classification was appropriate?
  • Whether IEP revision was required?
  • Whether present performance level of student was correct?
  • Whether the school division provided FAPE?
  • Whether proper safety measures in place to protect child from harm?
  • Whether parents received proper notice of changes in student's placement?
• Case #9—Reference # 02-042
  • Whether school division should pay for education center evaluation?
  • Whether attending living center necessary to provide FAPE?
  • Whether school staff was adequately qualified?
  • Whether school division properly implemented IEP?
  • Whether school division provided FAPE?
  • Whether proper tools in place to adequately notify parents of student's progress?
  • Whether medical doctor's report prompted need to revise IEP?
• Case #10—Reference # 02-020
  • Whether student is eligible to receive FAPE from special school?
• Case #11—Reference # 02-045
  • Whether school division's proposed IEP omitting environmental accommodation was reasonably calculated to provide FAPE?
  • Whether school division adequately involved parents in developing IEP?
  • Whether IEP was defective because of omission of student's environmental sensitivities?
• Case #12—Reference # 02-040
  • Whether division failed to provide FAPE?
• Case #13—Reference # 02-061
  • Whether division failed to provide FAPE?
  • Whether an evaluation of student was needed?
  • Whether the student needed special education services for the calendar year?
• Case #14—Reference # 02-067
  • Whether student was improperly labeled and subsequently improperly placed?
  • Whether student suffered from mental anguish as a result of placement?
  • Whether the student had been discriminated against?
• Case #15—Reference # 02-074
  • Whether division failed to provide FAPE?
  • Whether conduct of student was a direct result of disability?
  • Whether removal from the LEA was proper?
  • Whether specific facility placement constituted a change in placement that mandated a new IEP?
• Case #16—Reference # 02-013
  • Whether division failed to provide FAPE?
  • Whether the student's disability affected performance?
  • Whether fight a student was involved in was a direct result of disability?
  • Whether student's IEP was defective because it lacked a functional behavioral assessment (FBA)?
  • Whether parents should be reimbursed for private placement of student?
• Case #17—Reference # 02-048
  • Whether a $ 1,000.00 cap for IEE reimbursement was reasonable?
  • Whether school should pay for two IEEs previously performed on student?
  • Whether the school should fund additional IEEs performed on student?
• Case #18—Reference # 02-041
  • Whether LEA was provided appropriate notice of student's removal from school?
  • Whether parents indicated specific concerns about the student's IEP prior to removal?
  • Whether a specific IEP addressed all areas of suspected disability?
  • Whether the school division considered parents expert evaluations?
  • Whether specific school was an appropriate placement for student?
• Case #19—Reference # 02-073
  • Whether proposed IEP appropriate?
  • Whether school placement of student appropriate?
  • Whether $ 200.00 reimbursement for educational consultant should be provided parents?
• Case #20—Reference # 02-072
  • Whether LEA's proposed placement of student was appropriate?
  • Whether parents should be reimbursed for private school placement of student?
• Case #21—Reference # 02-091
  • Whether division failed to provide FAPE when denying sensory integrated based OT or in the alternative general OT?
• Case #22—Reference # 02-100
  • Whether student should receive compensatory services for school year 2000-2001?
  • Whether school provided enough hours for ESY services?
• Case #23—Reference # 02-070
  • Whether LEA failed to implement IEP?
  • Whether student is entitled to compensatory services?
  • Whether LEA failed to follow material due process procedural requirements?
  • Whether LEA can provide an adequate IEP and related services?
• Case #24—Reference # 02-051
  • Whether proposed IEP was appropriate?
  • Whether LEA's defense of laches is applicable?
  • Whether LEA is required to perform medical procedure on student?
  • Whether LEA is liable for costs of private placement of student?
• Case #25—Reference # 01-035
  • Whether division failed to provide FAPE?
• Case #26—Reference # 01-057
  • Whether division failed to provide FAPE?
  • Whether there were procedural defects in the IEP/Eligibility Process?
• Case #27—Reference # 01-082
  • Which party had the burden of proof?
  • Whether division failed to provide FAPE?
  • Whether the absence of individual psychotherapy in the IEP rendered the IEP defective?
• Case #28—Reference # 01-105
  • Whether division failed to provide FAPE?
  • Whether the student should return to regular classroom?
• Case #29—Reference # 01-107
  • Whether division failed to provide FAPE?
  • Whether the student should return to regular classroom?
  • Whether informed consent was provided?
• Case #30—Reference # 01-106
  • Whether division failed to provide FAPE?
  • Whether the student should return to regular classroom?
  • Whether informed consent was provided?
• Case #31—Reference # 01-104
  • Whether division failed to provide FAPE?
  • Whether the student should return to regular classroom?
• Case #32—Reference # 01-087
  • Whether division failed to provide FAPE?
  • Whether the student eligible for special education classroom?
• Case #33—Reference # 01-120
  • Whether placement in special education classroom provided FAPE?
• Case #34—Reference # 01-125a
  • Whether a decrease in IEP mandated services was appropriate?
• Case #35—Reference # 01-126
  • Whether educational plan complied with LRE?
  • Whether current placement was appropriate?
  • Whether IEP was procedurally sufficient to provide benefit to student?
• Case #36—Reference # 01-084
  • Whether student's placement was appropriate?
• Case #37—Reference # 01-130
  • Whether student's placement, pursuant to disciplinary issue and IEP, was proper?
  • Whether student was receiving appropriate special education services?
• Case #38—Reference # 01-006
  • Whether parents are entitled to reimbursement for the cost of in-home educational services?