Counterclaim is not subject to IDEA statute of limitations

Jonathan H. v. The Souderton Area School Dist., 562 F.3d 527 (3rd Cir. 2009): School district's counterclaim, challenging award of compensatory education in IDEA action, was not “action” within meaning of limitations period applicable to party bringing civil action under IDEA, and, thus, counterclaim could be brought beyond IDEA's 90-day limitations period.

SDNY reverses SRO yet again on reimbursement claim

N.R., on behalf of T.R. v. NYC Bd of Ed., 07-CV-9648, 2009 WL 874061(SDNY, decided 3/31/09)(Judge Jones): At hearing, the district conceded on prong 1, that it failed to offer a FAPE. The IHO found against the parents on prong 2 and thus, rejected the parents claim for reimbursement for a private placement at the Rebecca School. The IHO did not make a determination on the equities. SRO Paul Kelly reversed on prong 2 in favor of the parents, but denied the claim on the equities(SRO 07-038). In a very well reasoned decision, the SDNY granted the parents motion for summary judgment. The Court found that the parents had cooperated throughout the placement process. The denial of FAPE was premised in part on the district failure to offer a site specific placement prior to the start of the school year. The Court noted that there are no cases supporting the denial of reimbursement on the equities where the district has failed to offer the child a placement.

SDNY rejects parent appeal of SRO decision in Connors type case

S.W. v. NYC Bd. of Ed., 2009 WL 857549 (SDNY March 30, 2009): In affirming SRO 07-032, the SDNY(Judge Koeltl) held that the parent failed to give notice of her claim for funding of the private placement. The parents sought direct payment to the private school as opposed to reimbursement. As such, this was what is colloquially referred to in N.Y. as a “Connors” case. By deciding the case on the equities, the Court avoided having to decide the issue of whether a parent may be entitled to prospective relief in the form of direct payment to a private school, but the Court does discuss the issue and concludes that “ In a case where the equities favor such an award, there may be good reasons why direct tuition payment should be a remedy available to a needy parent, on either a prospective or retrospective basis.” This case is a must read for attorneys litigating Connors cases. There is extensive treatment of whether the parent has standing to bring such a claim. Here, the Court answered in the affirmative.

SDNY reverses SRO again on reimbursement claim

Eschenasy v. New York City Dept. of Educ., Slip Copy, 2009 WL 804120
S.D.N.Y.,2009: IHO found for the parent on this reimbursement claim for a private placement at the Elan School. SRO reversed in case number 06-077 finding that she was not emotionally disturbed despite the child’s history of social maladjustment, cutting behavior, lying, stealing, inappropriate sexual conduct, purging, and a variety of other serious behavioral and emotional problems. The SDNYdisagreed and reversed the SRO. Note that the SRO just recently decided the next chapter in this same case in SRO 08-099, again reversing an IHO determination of eligibility and an award of reimburement at the Elan School.

After finding that the child met two of the five categories in the definition of emotionally disturbed, the Court then determined that her symptoms had adversely affected educational performance. The Court highlighted that SRO Kelly had essentially mischaracterized the evidence in the record in concluding that the child’s emotional problems had not adversely impacted her educational performance stating:

Despite acknowledging testimony in the record that Ann failed several courses in high school, the SRO stated that there was no documentary evidence of failing grades nor was there any testimony from her teachers or any indication that she had been held back a grade. Based on this lack of evidence, the SRO found that Ann had not shown that her emotional problems adversely affected her educational performance.

The Court allowed a transcript as additional evidence reasoning that

the documents are relevant and useful to the analysis of whether Ann's emotional problems have affected her educational performance. This is especially true in light of the SRO's confusing statements about Ann's failing grades and his suggestion that there was insufficient documentary evidence that her school work had been adversely affected. In addition, this evidence directly contradicts defendants' argument that Ann has been able to obtain passing grades despite her emotional problems. I therefore conclude that the usefulness of these transcripts outweighs any procedural considerations weighing against their admission.

Finally, while ruling that the equities favored reimbursement, the equities weighed against an award of attorney fees because the parents were partially to blame for the district’s failure to conduct an evaluation and classroom observation prior to the unilateral placement.

Pendency does not absolve the district of obligation to develop IEP

SRO 08-026: SRO found that district was not relieved of its obligation to develop an IEP during the course of hearing. SRO Paul Kelly rejected the district's contention that it did not have to develop an IEP for the student because he was receiving services through pendency. Kelly noted that “[c]onducting CSE meetings and formulating and offering new IEPs during the course of pending litigation is not prohibited under the IDEA provided that there is adherence to pendency requirements (Letter to Watson, 48 IDELR 284 [OSEP 2007]; see Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-122).”

SRO reverses IHO in unusual Kildonan case

SRO 08-055: This case started out as a reimbursement case. By the time the hearing rolled around, the parents decided to continue the child in the district placement and to request prospective placement at Kildonan while challenging the appropriateness of the placement. On the last day of hearing, the parents withdrew their request for placement at Kildonan, but still sought a ruling from the IHO on the appropriateness of Kildonan, reasoning that it could give them pendency in the future. The IHO ruled for the parent; SRO Kelly reversed. He found for the parent on prong 1, but found that the parent had not established the appropriateness of Kildonan. He employed the 3 prong reimbursement analysis with no discussion as to why he was doing so in a case that had become something other than a reimbursement case. Nor did he mention or discuss Connors.

SRO excuses parent failures in awarding reimbursement

SRO 08-088: SRO Paul Kelly reversed an IHO denial of reimbursement. Kelly excused the failure by the parent to allege in the hearing request that the district’s proposed placement was unavailable at the start of the school year. He found that the issue had been litigated at hearing without objection by the district, and that that thus excused the failure by the parent to raise the issue in the hearing request. He then excused the parent’s failure to adequately inform the district of her concerns in the notice of intent to seek reimbursement. His rationale was that it was reasonable for the parents to place their child in 07-08 after the district failed to offer a placement in 07-08 and that the failure by the parent to detail their concerns did not prevent the district from addressing their concerns.

Can district take positions not raised in response to hearing request

The short answer is yes, they probably can. At least in New York State where SRO Paul Kelly holds court. But, in SRO 08-145, the parent argued that the district should be foreclosed from arguing the inadequacy of the parent’s notice of intent to seek reimbursement because the district had not raised this argument in their response to the hearing request. Kelly left open the possibility of holding for the parent in the future on this issue by stating

The parents argue that the district did not properly raise the issue of whether the parents
provided notice under 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii)(I) because it was not raised in the district's
response to the parents' due process complaint notice (see 8 NYCRR 200.5[i][4][i]). However,
the hearing record shows and the parents admit in their petition (Pet. ¶¶ 26-27, 30, 46), that at the impartial hearing the district's counsel cross-examined the student's mother on this issue and the parents did not object to that line of questioning (Tr. pp. 124-25). Furthermore, the district's
counsel reiterated this argument during closing statements (Tr. pp. 147-48) and the impartial
hearing officer appropriately made a determination on the issue.

SRO affirms denial of reimbursement claim despite unavailability of district recommended placement

SRO 08-157: No surprise that the SRO Kelly affirmed the denial of reimbursement, but the case is notable for Kelly permitting a recommendation for placement into a class for which there were no openings. And the recommendation was made 2 weeks prior to the start of school. See SRO 08-088 for case in which the SRO found that the IHO "should have considered wheterh the district had a classroom seat available for the student at the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year, and if not, he should have determined whether the failure to do so rose to the level of denying the student a FAPE".

Parents defective notice does not preclude reimbursement

SRO 08-062: Parents prevailed at hearing on reimbursement claim. On appeal, district conceded prong 1 and contested prongs 2 and 3. Of note, the district argued that the parent should be denied reimbursement on equitable grounds for having provided inadequate notice of intent to make a reimbursement claim. SRO Paul Kelly agreed that the parent “failed to state her concerns regarding the proposed public placement and was therefore not in compliance with notification requirements.” But, Kelly excused the violation because the district promptly inquired as to what the parent’s concerns were; the parent left two messages for the district and the district did nothing in response.

SRO affirms IHO decision re denial of FAPE

SRO 08-060: School district attorney David Oakes filed a motion to dismiss the parent’s hearing request. This is a strategy that he used successfully in 08-008 and 07-122 and appears to be using as a matter of course. Here, however, the IHO denied the motion and ultimately ruled in the parent’s favor. The SRO affirmed, rejecting the district argument that the parent’s claims were moot and also finding that the IEP was not appropriate. Of note, the district had identified particular needs for which the IEP did not contain specific goals. Kelly noted that deficiencies in the IEP “may not have risen to the level of denying the student a FAPE on their own, those deficiencies, in concert with the failures to properly implement the IEP ..., did deny the student a FAPE.” He further noted, “The 2007-08 IEP failed in three ways: it did not offer a FAPE at the time it was developed, it was not properly implemented, and it was not revised as appropriate during the year when the student's social, emotional and behavioral needs increased.”

It is interesting to note that Kelly rejected the district’s argument that it was “a violation of the mootness doctrine for the impartial hearing officer to order the district to take several actions during the remainder of the 2007-08 school year when that school year had nearly ended.” In constrast, Kelly has mooted numerous claims where the appeal to the SRO extends past the end of the school year, precisely what occurred here.

SRO Kelly excuses district failure to provide hearing request

SRO 08-039: Can you imagine that SRO Paul Kelly would uphold an IHO decision in the parent’s favor if the parent never filed a hearing request? He recently did so for a district. This case addressed the district’s refusal to pay for an independent evaluation. The IHO went ahead with a hearing despite the fact that the district had never provided the parent with a hearing request. The IHO then ruled for the district and against the parent on her claim for reimbursement for the IEE. The SRO held for the district finding that the parent did not properly initiate the appeal. SRO Kelly nonetheless reviewed the merits of the appeal. He agreed with the parents regarding the district’s failure to provide them with a hearing request, but found that “this procedural irregularity did not rise to the level of a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE).” Kelly reasoned that “the parents had actual and constructive notice of the hearing and the issues and failed to make the sufficiency challenge in a timely manner.”

District must provide aide on site at private school

Bay Shore Union Free School District v. Thomas Kain, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2009 WL 710577 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.,2009): This 2004 case is creeping through the state court system at a snail’s pace. The appellate division, 2nd department, affirmed the lower court order that the school district must provide a personal aide on site at the private school. Note that the SRO sided with the parent on this issue.

Unappealed IHO decision establishes pendency

SRO 08-009: This case is from early 2008, but is worthy of note for the proposition that an unappealed IHO decision establishes pendency during subsequent proceedings.

SRO closes door tight on reimbursement claim

SRO 08-042: Parents prevailed at hearing. SRO Paul Kelly quickly disposed of the appeal by finding that the IHO improperly placed the burden of proof on the school district on the eligibility issue. “A misapplication of the burden of proof is reversible error (see M.M. v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 512 F.3d 455, 459 [8th Cir. 2008]), and as such, the impartial hearing officer's decision regarding the student's eligibility for special education programs and services is annulled.”
Kelly did not stop there, however. He analyzed each of the three prongs and found for the district on each. Of particular note is the equities analysis. Kelly found that the parent never intended to place the child in the public school and that the parents had referred the child to the CSE not for special ed services, but rather to attempt to secure funding for a private school education.