Opinion ID: 77196
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The State Administrative Hearing

Text: 35 The due process hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), that C.M.'s parents requested on January 31, 2002, was held February 12 through 14, 2003, and March 11 through 12, 2003. 5 At the hearing, all the above information was introduced. 36 The ALJ issued a 111-page opinion. Essentially, the ALJ made two independent, alternative conclusions relevant to the IDEA when denying the parents' challenge to the IEPs. 37 First, the ALJ determined sua sponte that it was without the authority, and thus jurisdiction, to provide C.M.'s parents with retroactive relief of reimbursement for AVT under the 2002 IEP or the successor IEP. Specifically, the ALJ stated: 38 Even if he agreed with the Parents that the January 2002 and 2003 IEPs were fatally flawed, the undersigned would not have the authority to order the reimbursement requested by the parents because such reimbursement is not of the limited type a hearing officer/Administrative Law Judge in Florida is authorized to award in a due process proceeding. . . . Accordingly, the Parents' request for reimbursement [of AVT expenses] is denied. 39 The ALJ based its conclusion on the belief that it was only authorized to reimburse for the cost of the private school enrollment of an exceptional student who has been unilaterally moved by his parents from public school to private school under the circumstances described in 20 U.S.C. Section 1412(a)(10)(C) and 34 C.F.R. Section 300.403. (punctuation omitted). According to the ALJ, the fact that C.M. had never been enrolled in public school, let alone unilaterally removed from public school, rendered it without jurisdiction to award any reimbursement for C.M.'s AVT. 40 Second, and alternatively, the ALJ assumed that even if it had jurisdiction to award C.M. parents reimbursement for AVT, C.M.'s parents had not shown that the School Board's failure to offer AVT constituted the denial of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). Specifically, the ALJ concluded that the issue raised by the Parents in their due process hearing request as to whether AVT is a supportive service C.[M.] is entitled to receive from the School Board because such service is indispensable to enabling C.[M.] to `access her education' remains one over which the parties still disagree. In resolving this dispute, the ALJ noted that [a]s a hearing-impaired child with a properly functioning cochlear implant who communicates through spoken language, C.[M.] needs expressive and receptive language therapy to help her develop her oral communication skills. 41 The ALJ determined that [w]hile there can be no question that C.[M.] has benefit[t]ed significantly from the AVT she has received from Ms. Bricker, AVT is not the only accepted and proven therapeutic methodology that can help C.[M.] become a better oral communicator and thereby `access her education.' The ALJ concluded that VT is an accepted and proven therapy and that [i]t is the School Board's prerogative, not the Parents', to choose which of these accepted and proven methodologies will be provided at public expense. 42 Ultimately, the ALJ concluded that even assuming that, despite C.[M.]'s voluntary enrollment in a private preschool, the Parents are entitled to have their complaint regarding the School Board's failure to provide C.[M.] with AVT heard in a due process hearing, the Parents' position that such failure on the School Board's part constitutes a denial of a FAPE in the least restrictive environment appropriate must be rejected. 43 C.M.'s parents then filed their complaint in district court. Their complaint sought reimbursement from the School Board for C.M.'s private AVT, transportation to and from AVT, mapping (programming) for C.M.'s cochlear implant, and batteries for C.M.'s implant.