This is a redacted version of the original decision. Select details have been removed from the
decision to preserve anonymity of the student. The redactions do not affect the substance of
the document.
Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer
DECISION
Child’s Name: C.H.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Dates of Hearing:
August 23, 2013
September 26, 2013
September 27, 2013
October 10, 2013
October 11, 2013
October 17, 2013
CLOSED HEARING
ODR Case #14056-1213KE
Parties to the Hearing:
Parent
Philadelphia School District 440 North Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19130
Representative:
Sonja Kerr, Esquire
Public Interest Law Center
1790 Benjamin Franklin Parkway 2nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Mr. Brian Subers, Esquire
Fox Rothschild LLP
10 Sentry Parkway / Suite 200 P.O. Box 3001
Blue Bell, PA 19422-3001
Date Record Closed: November 1, 2013
Date of Decision: November 11, 2013
Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Student (“student”) is a [teenaged] student residing in the Philadelphia School District (“District”). The parties agree that the student qualifies under the terms of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEA”)1 for specially designed instruction/related services for autism and speech and language impairment.
The parent claims that the District failed to provide a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) to the student for the 2012-2013 school year, including extended school year programming (“ESY”) for summer 2013. Parent also claims that the District has violated its obligations to the student under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”).2 As a result, the parent claims compensatory education for these alleged deprivations. Additionally, parent seeks directives for the student’s individualized education plan (“IEP”) team.3
The District counters that, at all times, it met its obligations to the student under IDEA and Section 504. As such, the District argues that no remedy is owed to the student.
For the reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the parent.
ISSUES
Was the student provided with a free appropriate public education for the 2012-2013 school year?
If not, is parent entitled to compensatory education and/or other remedy?
C-H-Philadelphia-ODRNo-14056-1213KE