Hearing Officer Decisions 2002-2003

Refer also to Index of Issues

July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003

• Case #1—Reference # 02-078
  • Whether school division provided FAPE?
  • Whether school division provided education in LRE?
  • Whether school division provided transportation?
  • Whether the student's rights under Section 504 were violated?
• Case #2—Reference # 02-090
  • Whether school division should reimburse parents for the cost of private placement?
• Case #3—Reference # 02-024
  • Whether school division should reimburse for hospital placement of student?
  • Whether certain claims are time barred?
• Case #4—Reference # 02-104
  • Whether student was improperly given a long-term suspension without benefit of student's rights under IDEA?
• Case #5—Reference # 02-086
  • Whether student's behavior was a manifestation of student's disability?
• Case #6—Reference # 02-077
  • Whether school division provided FAPE?
  • Whether school division violated procedures?
• Case #7—Reference # 02-076
  • Whether student was properly deemed ineligible for special education and related services?
• Case #8—Reference # 02-089
  • Whether school division provided FAPE?
• Case #9—Reference # 02-081
  • Whether school division provided FAPE?
• Case #10—Reference # 02-092
  • Whether student's current IEP provided FAPE?
  • Whether home-based setting provided LRE?
  • Whether school division violated IDEA procedures?
  • Who had the burden of proof?
• Case #11—Reference # 02-080
  • Whether school division provided FAPE?
• Case #12—Reference # 02-065
  • Whether notice was given to parents relative to manifestation determination meeting?
  • Whether school division's finding that student's conduct was not a manifestation of his or her disability was correct?
  • Whether student's current IEP was appropriate?
  • Whether school division violated Section 504 relative to disciplining student?
  • Whether school division provided FAPE?
• Case #13—Reference # 02-095
  • Whether parents provided school division with adequate notice prior to unilateral placement of student in private school?
  • Whether school division's finding that student's conduct was not a manifestation of his or her disability was correct?
  • Whether school division offered FAPE?
  • Whether parents established, via evidence, that school division failed to provide FAPE?
• Case #14—Reference # 02-117
  • Whether student's current IEP was appropriate?
  • Whether parents' unilateral placement of student was appropriate?
• Case #15—Reference # 03-016
  • Whether school division should reimburse parents for ABA therapy services?
  • Whether school division's IEP provided FAPE?
• Case #16—Reference # 03-011
  • Whether student was eligible for special education and related services?
  • Whether Child Find procedures were properly and timely carried out?
  • Whether student was a child with a disability?
  • Whether school division provided FAPE?
  • Whether school division properly placed student in homebound instruction status?
  • Whether school division provided all homebound services to which student was entitled?
• Case #17—Reference # 02-099
  • Whether school division's IEPs provided FAPE?
  • Whether parent should be reimbursed for privately obtained IEE?
• Case #18—Reference # 02-116
  • Whether hearing officer was timely appointed?
  • Which party had the burden of proof?
  • Whether school division's IEPs provided FAPE?
  • Whether failure to include teacher at IEP meeting was a denial of FAPE?
  • Whether parent's unilateral private placement of child was appropriate?
  • Whether parent's should be reimbursed for tuition for private placement?
• Case #19—Reference # 02-105
  • Whether school division properly determined that student's conduct was not a manifestation of student's disability?
• Case #20—Reference # 02-109
  • Whether school division held a timely annual IEP review?
  • Whether school division failed to timely institute due process?
  • Whether student was denied FAPE because the annual IEP meeting was not timely reconvened?
• Case #21—Reference # 02-058
  • Whether SEA properly implemented the complaint resolution procedures?
• Case #22—Reference # 02-108
  • Whether school division violated the procedural requirements of IDEA, thereby denying FAPE?
  • When was the student eligible to receive special education and related services?
  • Whether school division's IEP provided FAPE?Whether § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act was violated?
  • Whether student was entitled to compensatory education?
  • Whether this due process case was moot if the student moved to another school division?
• Case #23—Reference # 02-044
  • Whether student's placement should be changed from a private day school to residential placement?
• Case #24—Reference # 02-101
  • Whether school division's proposed placement was the least restrictive environment?
  • Whether parent's unilateral placement was the least restrictive environment?
  • Whether parents should be reimbursed for unilateral placement?
  • Which party had the burden to prove the appropriate placement of the student?
• Case #25—Reference # 00-111
  • Whether student met the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the school division did not comply with the IEP (junior year)?
  • Whether school division failed to properly implement the IEP (senior year), thus denying FAPE?
  • Whether a hearing officer had subject matter jurisdiction to change a student's grades?
• Case #26—Reference # 03-018
  • Whether student was entitled to residential placement?
  • Whether parents provided proper notice to LEA of withdrawal of student before unilateral private placement?
• Case #27—Reference # 03-029
  • Whether school division's IEP provided FAPE?
• Case #28—Reference # 03-031
  • Whether student was entitled to residential placement?
• Case #29—Reference # 03-014-015
  • Whether student was eligible for special education services?
  • Whether school division's IEP provided FAPE?
  • Whether parents should be reimbursed for unilateral private placement?
• Case #30—Reference # 03-019
  • Whether parents are entitled to reimbursement for placing child in a reading program?
• Case #31—Reference # 03-023
  • Whether school division's proposed IEP and proposed placement provided FAPE?
  • Whether parents should be reimbursed for unilateral private placement?
• Case #32—Reference # 03-039
  • Whether parents were entitled to reimbursement for IEEs?
• Case #33—Reference # 03-040
  • Whether school division's IEP provided FAPE?
  • Whether aide was adequately trained to provide ABA therapy services?
  • Whether compensatory ABA therapy services were appropriate?
• Case #34—Reference # 03-062
  • Whether school division's IEP provided FAPE?
  • Whether ESY services were required to provide FAPE?
  • Whether unilateral private placement by the parents was appropriate?
  • Whether parents were entitled to reimbursement for educational expenses?
  • Whether school division discriminated against the child thereby violating § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act?
• Case #35—Reference # 03-063
  • Whether filing a Child In Need of Supervision (CHINS) Petition with a court of law is a disciplinary action that requires an expedited due process proceeding?
  • Whether filing a CHINS petition is considered a change in placement?
  • Whether a hearing officer has the authority to compel a school division to withdraw a CHINS petition?
• Case #36—Reference # 03-071
  • Whether it is dangerous for the student to remain in the current placement?
  • Whether manifestation determination was procedurally flawed?
  • Whether school division's proposed placement at a regional school is the least restrictive environment and whether it provided FAPE?
• Case #37—Reference # 03-073
  • Whether school division's IEP provided FAPE?
  • Whether parents are entitled to private placement?
• Case #38—Reference # 03-045
  • Whether parents were afforded the opportunity to participate in the IEP process?
  • Whether IEP included the required components?
  • Whether school division must provide the student with an augmentive communication device?
  • Whether a hearing officer can award attorney's fees?
  • Whether school division's IEP provided FAPE? Whether school division must provide the best possible education?
• Case #39—Reference # 03-057
  • Whether school division's IEP failed to provide FAPE because it did not include a specific reading program?
  • Whether parents should be reimbursed for unilateral private placement?
• Case #40—Reference # 03-079
  • Whether ESY services were required to provide FAPE?