Programs & Services » Special Education » Resolving Disputes » Special Education Due Process Hearings » Hearing Office Decisions - Index of Issues

Hearing Officer Decisions 2003-2004

Print
Share & Bookmark, Press Enter to show all options, press Tab go to next option
Font Size: + -

Refer also to Index of Issues

July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004

  • Case #1—Reference # 03-020
    • Whether IEP contained a placement that was appropriate to provide FAPE?
    • Whether parent was entitled to reimbursement for private placement and related services?
    • Whether parent was entitled to a second IEE?
    • Whether LEA complied with procedural requirements of IDEA during the initial eligibility determination and during the preparation of IEPs?
  • Case #2—Reference # 03-067
    • Whether IEP contained services that were appropriate to provide FAPE?
  • Case #3—Reference # 03-087
    • Whether the proposed IEP contained services that were appropriate to provide FAPE?
    • Whether § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act was violated?
  • Case #4—Reference # 03-088
    • Whether residential placement was necessary to provide FAPE?
  • Case #5—Reference # 04-006
    • Whether child remained eligible for special education and related services?
  • Case #6—Reference # 04-012
    • Whether part of parents' claim was barred by the statute of limitations?
    • Whether LEA complied with the procedural requirements of IDEA in developing and implementing the IEPs?
    • Whether IEP contained a placement that was appropriate to provide FAPE?
    • Whether LEA must reimburse parents for expenses they incurred in connection with private placement?
    • Whether parents were entitled to compensatory education in the forms of tutoring and speech therapy?
  • Case #7—Reference # 04-023
    • Whether parents received appropriate notice of an IEP meeting?
  • Case #8—Reference # 04-024
    • Whether IEPs were appropriate to provide FAPE in the least restrictive environment?
    • Whether LEA followed proper procedures in making placement decision?
    • Whether LEA provided parents with appropriate notice of IEP meeting?
    • Whether the "stay-put provision" of IDEA was violated?
    • Whether extended school year (ESY) programming or extended school day (ESD) programming was required to provide FAPE?
  • Case #9—Reference # 04-026
    • Whether the proposed IEP provided adequate health-care related services to enable the child to benefit from special education?
    • Whether parents' actions prevented the LEA from obtaining the child's medical records?
  • Case #10—Reference # 01-125b
    • Whether the amount of extended school year (ESY) services offered under the LEA's IEP were sufficient to prevent the gains the child had made during the school year from being significantly jeopardized?
  • Case #11—Reference # 03-099
    • Whether parents were entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection with private placement and expenses incurred for treatment and evaluations?
    • Whether IEPs contained a placement that was appropriate to provide FAPE?
  • Case #12—Reference # 03-095
    • Whether IEP contained a placement that was appropriate to implement those services and programs necessary to provide FAPE?
    • Whether extended school year (ESY) programming was required to provide FAPE?
    • Whether parents were entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection with private placement?
  • Case #13—Reference # 04-030
    • Whether the IEP was appropriate to provide FAPE?
    • Whether there were procedural violations during the development and implementation of IEPs?
    • Whether parents were entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection with private placement?
  • Case #14—Reference # 04-033
    • Whether in-school use of the Kurzweil reading and writing program was necessary to provide FAPE?
    • Whether the educational placement of the child was in the least restrictive environment?
    • Whether the proposed IEP was appropriate to provide FAPE?
  • Case #15—Reference # 04-038
    • Whether parents could challenge a residential foster care placement decision made by a family assessment and protection team (FAPT) at a due process proceeding?
  • Case #16—Reference # 04-001
    • Whether child was eligible to receive special education and related services?
    • Whether LEA denied the child FAPE by failing to provide an appropriate and current IEP that adequately addressed services and placement?
    • Whether LEA properly followed evaluation procedures?
    • Whether LEA properly categorized the child's disability?
    • Whether LEA properly reviewed the child's behavioral intervention plan (BIP) before removing the child from the current educational placement?
    • Whether LEA properly followed discipline procedures in conducting a manifestation determination review?
    • Whether the interim alternative educational setting was properly determined?
    • Whether child was subjected to emotional and physical distress by LEA staff because of the child's disability?
    • Whether LEA provided homebound services as ordered by a Virginia circuit court?
  • Case #17—Reference # 04-051
    • Whether LEA properly demonstrated that the child's behavior in bringing knives to school was not a manifestation of the child's disability?
    • Whether LEA waived its right to enforce discipline procedures as a result of statements made at a manifestation determination review?
  • Case #18—Reference # 04-052
    • Whether IEP contained services that were appropriate to provide FAPE?
  • Case #19—Reference # 04-039
    • Whether the IEP contained a placement that was appropriate to provide FAPE?
    • Which party should bear the burden of proof on the issue of the change in placement?
    • Whether the "stay-put provision" of IDEA was violated?
  • Case #20—Reference # 04-040
    • Whether a reevaluation was required to be conducted at the request of a parent if the other parent refuses to consent to it?
    • Whether conducting a reevaluation prior to the triennial reevaluation would be harmful to the child?
  • Case #21—Reference # 04-002
    • Whether LEA's failure to inform the parents of any free or low-cost legal and other relevant services compromised the parents' procedural protections and caused the child to suffer a loss of an educational opportunity?
  • Case #22—Reference # 04-037
    • Whether the IEP contained a placement that was appropriate to provide FAPE?
    • Whether parents were entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection with private placement?
  • Case #23—Reference # 04-044
    • Whether LEA correctly identified the child as "other health impaired" rather than "autistic"?
    • Whether LEA properly followed discipline procedures?
    • Whether LEA denied the child FAPE by failing to provide an appropriate IEP that adequately addressed services and placement?
  • Case #24—Reference # 04-046
    • The terms of the settlement agreement, which resolved the issues of placement and related services, were incorporated into the decision.
  • Case #25—Reference # 04-056
    • Whether extended school year (ESY) programming was required during the winter break in order to provide FAPE?
  • Case #26—Reference # 04-060
    • Whether the IEP contained appropriate health care-related services in order to ensure FAPE?
    • Whether the IEP team impermissibly ceded its authority to a non-IEP team in order to determine resources for the child?
  • Case #27—Reference # 04-064
    • Whether LEA was required to pay the parent's lost wages that were incurred as a result of her attendance at the due process hearing?
    • Whether counseling services and transportation to the counseling services were required in order to provide the child FAPE?
    • Whether procedural violations were committed during IEP meetings and eligibility committee meetings, which caused the child to suffer a loss of an educational opportunity?
  • Case #28—Reference # 04-071
    • Whether child was eligible for special education and related services.
  • Case #29—Reference # 04-069
    • The terms of the settlement agreement, which resolved the issues of a private placement, an assistive technology evaluation, and extended school year (ESY) programming, were incorporated into the decision.
  • Case #30—Reference # 04-089
    • Whether the suspension of a regular education student was the result of conduct related to a disability?
  • Case #31—Reference # 04-068
    • Whether the IEP contained a placement that was appropriate to provide FAPE?
  • Case #32—Reference # 04-062
    • Whether LEA provided parents with sufficient notice of an IEP meeting?
  • Case #33—Reference # 04-088
    • Whether child's placement should be changed to an interim alternative educational setting (IAES) for 45 days?
  • Case #34—Reference # 04-067
    • Whether LEA demonstrated that the child's behavior was not a manifestation of the child's disability?
  • Case #35—Reference # 04-066
    • Whether IEP contained a placement that was appropriate to provide FAPE?
    • Whether LEA must reimburse parents for expenses incurred in connection with a private placement?
  • Case #36—Reference # 04-077
    • Whether LEA's failure to notify parents of an IEP meeting and to hold an IEP meeting before changing the child's placement constituted a denial of FAPE?
    • Whether LEA demonstrated that the child's behavior was not a manifestation of the child's disability?
  • Case #37—Reference # 04-101
    • Whether the hearing officer had subject matter jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement?
  • Case #38—Reference # 04-097
    • Whether LEA violated the parents' IDEA procedural rights by modifying the child's IEP without prior written notice and by not honoring the parents' request for a due process hearing?
    • Whether IEPs contained services appropriate to provide FAPE?
    • Whether child remained eligible for special education and related services?