Source: http://goldmanmaurer.com/articles/goldman-maurer-llp-wins-another-case-against-the-nycdoe
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:06:32+00:00

Document:
On July 6, 2015, a pro se due process complaint was filed on behalf of __ , pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), 20 U.S.C.§1415 (f). Three days later, on July 9, 2015,1 was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer in the matter.
On August 5, 2015, the mandatory resolution period (8 NYCRR §200.5(j)(2)) expired, and five days later on August 10, 2015,1 held a hearing with an interpreter in the Mandarin Chinese language in attendance[I]. At the hearing[II] the Department of Education ("DOE") consented to pendency at the last agreed-upon placement for ___, which had been at the United Cerebral Palsy School ("UCP"). Tr. 4-5. Pendency at UCP was later memorialized in an Interim Order, dated September 4,2015.[III] Exhibit O.
However, matters in this case soon evolved, and __ 's parents contracted an Education Consultant, Bruce Ellis, who filed an amended due process complaint, dated October 4, 2015, on their behalf. Exhibit K. On November 13, 2015, the second mandatory resolution period expired. A telephonic pre-hearing conference was then conducted with party representatives on November 24, 2015.
Subsequently, a hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (I.D.E.I.A.) was held to decide matters raised in the amended due process complaint. 20 U.S.C. §1415 (f). The hearing transpired on six dates: January 6, 2016, January 13, 2016, January 27, 2016, February 23, 2016, March 2, 2016, and March 30, 2016.[IV] At hearing, and throughout the remainder of the case, the parents added Brian Goldman, Esq. to its representation. Mr. Goldman, conducted the hearing on their behalf, with Mr. Ellis in attendance for all of it, except for January 27, 2016. The Department of Education ("DOE") was represented by Chanie Graus, District 15 Representative. The record was closed on May 6, 2016 upon the deadline for receipt of written closing briefs submitted by the parties, which I have entered into evidence as Exhibit IX (Petitioner), and Exhibit X (the DOE). Appended to this decision are lists of the persons in attendance at the hearings, documents received in evidence, and a statement regarding the right to appeal. See 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(5)(v).
A second IEP meeting was held on February 13, 2015 because the DOE representative was not in the room for the entire time, and also to recapitulate what had taken place with a more proficient Mandarin interpreter.
__ 's mother never intended to accept any CSE recommendation that did not place__ at UCP. Her visit to the proposed school placement was only for show.
__ 's mother was "mendacious" in professing that her knowledge of English was limited.
Therefore, the DOE disagrees with the parents' rejection of the DOE placement, and maintains that the parents' requested relief is not warranted.
The DOE has violated the IDEIA by not providing a proper interpreter during the IEP team meeting and during a "rushed" visit by ___'s mother to the proposed DOE placement, thereby negating requisite parental participation in the IEP process.
___ is making meaningful educational progress in his continued program at UCP.
Equitable considerations are in the parents' favor.
This case involves a disagreement between the parties over the provision of FAPE, so a look at pertinent law will be a necessary jumping off point.
(iii) Caused a deprivation of educational benefit.Defining the third possibility, the 2d Circuit, in Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist, 142 F. 3d 119, later concluded that the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP." "The purpose of the Act was more to open the door of public education to handicapped children on appropriate terms than to guarantee any particular level of education once inside." Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist. 142 F.3d 119, 130 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). It then quoted from an earlier ruling it had made and reaffirmed that what "the statute guarantees is an 'appropriate education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents.'" Walczak at 132. (internal citation omitted). However, a school district must provide an IEP that affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere "trivial advancement." "An appropriate public education under IDEA is one that is "likely to produce progress, not regression." Walczak, id.
A threshold tool in providing a FAPE is a written, individualized education program (IEP) that is tailored to the unique needs of the handicapped child. The "centerpiece" of the IDEA'S education delivery system is the IEP. Murphy v. Arlington Central School District Board of Education 297 F.3d 195, 197 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal citation omitted). Indeed, the CSE "must consider the results of the [student's] initial or most recent evaluations" (8 NYCRR 200.4(d)(2)). To put it another way, an appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(1); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(d)(2)(I). 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][I]; Tarlowe v. Dep't of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027, at *6 [S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008]). Furthermore, that evaluation must be "sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the student's special education needs" (8 NYCRR 200.4(b)(6)(ix). The purpose of the comprehensive evaluation is to "provide relevant information that directly assists persons in determining the educational needs of the student" (8 NYCRR 200.4(b)(6)(xi), An evaluation must include a physical examination, a psychological evaluation, an educational evaluation, a social history, a classroom observation and "other appropriate assessments or evaluations." (8 NYCRR 200.4(b)(1).[6I] A student's IEP must reflect the results of current evaluations. 8 NYCRR 200.4(b)(iv) provides that an initial evaluation must include "an observation of the student's learning environment (including the regular classroom setting) or, in the case of a student of less than school age or out of school, an environment appropriate for a student of that age, to document the student's academic performance and behavior in the areas of difficulty."
A CSE that prepares a student's IEP must include the student's parents, a regular education teacher of the student if the student is or may be participating in a regular education environment, a special education teacher of the student, a school psychologist, a school district representative who is qualified to provide or supervise special education, an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results, the school physician if requested by the parent in advance of the meeting, and the parent of another child with a disability (Education Law Section 4402 [b]; 8 NYCRR Section 200.3 [a] [ 1 ] [viii].
As indicated above, parents are an integral participant in the development of an IEP. As articulated by the Supreme Court: "Parents and guardians play a significant role in the IEP process. They must be informed about and consent to evaluations of their child under the Act. § 1414(c)(3). Parents are included as members of 'IEP teams,' §1414(d)(1)(B). They have the right to examine any records relating to their child, and to obtain an 'independent educational evaluation of the[ir] child.' § 1415(b)(1). They must be given written prior notice of any changes in an IEP, § 1415(b)(3), and be notified in writing of the procedural safeguards available to them under the Act, § 1415(d)(1). Schaffer v. Weast, 546 US 49, 53 (2005). The IEP must also contain present levels of performance, annual goals, and an objective method to evaluate whether those goals have been reached.
Should understanding of the English language be an issue, the district "must take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the parent understand the proceedings of the [CSE] meeting, including arranging for an interpreter for parents ... whose native language is other than English" (34 CFR 300.322[e]; 8 NYCRR 200.5(d)(5); 8 NYCRR 200.5 [j]  [vi]. The parent testified that her native language is other than English (Tr. p. 832).
Furthermore, parental participation at IEP meetings must be "meaningful". Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education, 392 F.3d 840, 853 (6th Cir. 2005). It should be noted that the Sixth Circuit amplification of what constitutes FAPE was cited without comment in a Second Circuit case, A.D. v. M.D. individually and on behalf of E.D., Plaintiffs v. The Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, 690 F. Supp. 2d 193 (2009), at 217.
The IDEIA's preference is for disabled children to be educated as much as feasible with their non-disabled peers, or in what is referred to as the "least restrictive environment" ("LRE") capable of meeting their needs. Id. at 132; 20 U. S. C. § 1412(5). Classroom placement is also a component of a FAPE. For instance, a New York court remanded a case to an IHO to determine the appropriateness of the District's proposed classroom placement for a student. J.M. and N.M. v. N.Y.C. Department of Education, 2013 U.S. Dist. 159533 (S.D.N.Y. November 7, 2013).
In the seminal case of Burlington, the Supreme Court held that in an appropriate situation, retroactive tuition reimbursement to parents was allowable under the Act. To determine whether it was allowable, it formulated a three-part examination of what is required to be shown. The three parts, or "prongs" are whether: (1) The program offered by their school district was inadequate or inappropriate; (2) The program selected by the parent was appropriate; and, (3) If equities supported the parent's claim. School Committee of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985). See also, Florence County School District v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993). Should a parent fail in either of the initial two Prongs, the inquiry terminates at that point and reimbursement is denied. Id.
Then, more than two decades after Rowley, the Supreme Court put the burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing upon the party seeking relief. Schaffer, supra. However, a couple of years later, the New York State Legislature reversed that obligation, and placed the burden of production and persuasion upon the school district, except as regards a unilateral private placement by parents, where they are tasked with the burden. (See Educ. Law §4401 [l][c], as amended by Ch. 583 of the Laws of 2007).
Multiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not. See Werner v. Clarksiown Central school District, 363 F. Supp. 2d 656, 659 (S.D.N.Y.) 2005) Further, the Second Circuit emphasizes that even minor violations may cumulatively result in a denial of a FAPE. See R.E. v. NYC. Dep't of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 175 (2d Cir.2012) The IEP meeting, which took place in two parts (am and pm) and is discussed directly below, had many such procedural failings, which easily added up to a denial of FAPE. Both the parents' attorney and the DOE representative proved to be proficient sleuths for their respective causes. (See Exhibits IX and X.) However, circumstance afforded the former the opportunity - which he grabbed hold of - to reveal damaging information that led directly to a central issue regarding parental participation in __'s bifurcated IEP meeting.
Consequently, there is a serious divergence in testimony that might have been clarified had the interpreter himself been called as a witness. However, Mr. Hui was not called, and thus was not able to testify himself as to his interaction with Ms. and as to whether and why he believed Ms. ____ understood what they were saying to each other. Additionally, no evidence has been introduced as to any of his independent qualifications to act as a Mandarin interpreter.
Testimony also cast doubt on whether Ms. ___ ever had any documents in her possession to examine even in English, much less than in Mandarin, as is required under New York State regulation. Indeed, the whole process was haphazard and deficient. District Representative Gonzalez agreed that parental input is very valuable, that parents know their children and that it's a "must" to have parental input. Tr. 292-293 However, while her statement is in accord with Rowley and its progeny, the actions of the Committee on Special Education on February 13, 2015 were not. In sum, neither meeting by itself was acceptable; nor did the two in combination cure the inadequacy. Considering both the actual time spent at the bifurcated IEP meeting and the dearth of requisite information compiled, the incomplete IEP team seemed to rush headlong to the finish line without completing the careful, prescribed steps to create an appropriate product. While the parent was physically present at the am meeting and on the telephone for the follow-up, to the extent that she was unable to understand what was being said, she might as well have been totally absent because she was unable to actually contribute to its outcome. Indeed, I find it somewhat ironic that while Ms. __ had difficulty in understanding the English language, that deficiency has been overwhelmed by what the English speaking DOE did not understand; or chose not to understand which were the needs of this 5 year old multiply disabled boy who could not speak for himself. It would appear that despite her English language deficit, the clearest, yet unlistened to voice, was that of__ 's mother, Ms.__ .
In sum, I find the partial absence of the district representative and the total absence of a representative from ___'s school, UCP, together with the lack of a parent member combined with the interpreting and translation deficiencies outlined immediately above to be procedural violations that led to a deprivation of educational benefit for ___.
In early August 2015 , Ms. ___ made a site visit to___ 's proposed placement at P141K. Ms. Simone Sanchez who accompanied Ms.__ during the visit, testified that she has an MA in special education, and has been working with a self-contained education program, designated as District 75 for the last 17 years.[X] Tr. 65 She said that Ms. ___ called her regarding the site visit, and did not ask for a "translator," despite communicating in "limited English." Tr. 68-69 This contrasts significantly with Ms. __'s testimony that at the visit, she indeed asked for an interpreter, and none was provided. The DOE introduced a "site visit" document that would indicate that Ms.____spoke more than the limited English to which Ms. Sanchez testified. However, I note that the document had a date of January 7, 2016, which is some three months after the parents' October 4, 2015 amended due process complaint was filed. Indeed, based on the testimony cited so far, I have doubts as to whether she could have supplied such detailed information. In sum, I find that an interpreter ought to have been provided for Ms.__ at the site visit.
Having found that the DOE failed to provide a FAPE, I now consider whether the parents met their burden by offering an educational program that is appropriate to meet the educational needs of young ___ I find that they have. In addressing the burden that the Parent must meet to satisfy Prong 2, the Second Circuit disseminates a detailed outline to help decide it.
Unfortunately, neither Ms. Barbieri nor any of__ 's other providers from UCP were invited to participate in the formulation of his IEP for the 2015-216 school year. However, what they most likely would have told the IEP team has been entered into evidence as Exhibits.
In sum, based on the credible testimony provided by UCP providers and by Ms.___ , I find that the record supports the finding that UCP is an appropriate placement for____ the 2015-2016 school year.
With respect to equitable considerations, the IDEIA allows that tuition reimbursement may be reduced or denied when a Parent fails to raise the appropriateness of an IEP in a timely manner and inform the school district of their intent to unilaterally place the child in a private school, fails to make their child available for evaluation by the school district, or upon a judicial finding of unreasonableness with respect to the actions taken by the Parent. 20 U.S.C. §1412[a][C][iii]; M.C. v. Voluntown Bd. Of Educ. 226 F3d 60, 68 (2d Cir.2000) See, Burlington, supra. However, none of those factors apply here. Ms. ___ fully cooperated with the DOE. She attended the morning CSE meeting, and participated in the brief afternoon telephone meeting. When one was not provided, she asked for a Notice of Recommendation. Indeed, the record has been silent regarding any lack of cooperation by Ms.____ , or by her husband. Accordingly, I find that equitable considerations favor reimbursement in the instant matter. See N.R. v. Department of Education of the City of New York, 2009 WL 874061 (S.D.N.Y.), which held that equitable considerations do not bar tuition reimbursement to a parent who provided notice of the child's educational needs and did not hinder the placement process. I have considered the parties remaining contentions and find that in light of my findings herein, I need not address them.
ORDERED that the Parents' request for tuition payment is GRANTED. Within thirty days, the Department of Education shall pay the retroactive direct payment of full tuition to the United Cerebral Palsy school of New York City for the cost of attendance associated with ___'s placement there for the 2015-2016 school year.
 Ordinarily I would have initially held a telephonic pre-hearing conference, but due to the request for an interpreter, I thought it best to have everyone meet in a hearing room instead.
 Sharlene Legendre, District 5 Representative, spoke for the DOE, and in off the record discussions it appeared that a settlement was in the offing, though no guarantee was given.
 The Order was signed by me on August 30,2015, and issued by the Hearing Office as of September 4, 2015, with a corresponding signature of the latter date.
 The word "translator" (one translates documents) has been used frequently throughout the hearing in place of the more correct word "interpreter" who is one interpreting orally from one language to another. For clarity, I will insert the word interpreter when appropriate, even if the word translator was used.
 Although the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (I.D.E.A.) was amended in 2004 in the I.D.E.I.A., the cases cited herein remain authoritative.
 It must utilize "technically sound instruments" to "assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors" (8 NYCRR 200.4 (b)(6)(x)).
 agencies must review, and where appropriate revise, each child's IEP at least annually. §1414(a)(5). See also § 1413(a)( 11). Rowley, supra at 182; See Walczak. supra at 122.

References: §200
 §1415
 § 200
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 300
 § 200
 v. 
 § 1414
 §1414
 § 1415
 § 1415
 § 1415
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1412
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §4401
 v. 
 v. 
 §1412
 v. 
 v. 
 §1414
 § 1413