Adam Wasserman Site

STUDENT v. SUMMIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS-DENALI

Student is eligible for special education and related services with emotional disturbance as a primary eligibility category as well as secondary categories of other health impairment, due to a diagnosis of attention deficit disorder; and specific learning disability.

STUDENT V. EL SEGUNDO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Even after finding out about petition created to kill the student, teachers did not notify her parents. School administrators were at fault for not taking any appropriate action against bullying.

STUDENT v. WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

The instruments used by school for assessment of student were “technically sound” and IEP team had adequate information to determine the nature of Student’s behaviors and consider whether changes in services were necessary. Hence, school did not fail to assess student in all areas of suspected disability.

School failed to provide any legal authority that relieved it of the responsibility for conducting a thorough cognition assessment. The IEP team did not have sufficient information concerning Student’s needs in the area of language and speech. Hence, mother was substantially impaired in her ability to fully participate in the collaborative IEP process

STUDENT v. GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

IEP of new school was consistent with IEP offered by previous school.

NPS offered by school was appropriate based on student’s needs. Hence, school was not required to reimburse expenses incurred by parents on placement of student in NPS of their choice.

STUDENT v. SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Student was properly assessed in all areas of suspected disability as per issues reported by parents and parent’s objections on the assessments were of subjective nature. Hence, school did not deny FAPE to the student in any way.

STUDENT v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

School denied student a FAPE by failing
– to invite parents to IEP meetings and failing to adequately explain IEP offer to parents at each IEP meeting.
– to implement during student’s distance learning his operative IEP, specifically specialized academic instruction, behavior services and supports, and counseling.
– to provide appropriate behavior services and supports for in-person learning during a school year

School neither offered appropriate academic and behavior services and supports IEP nor offered Student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment such that it may implement the IEP without Parent’s consent.

STUDENT v. BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

School’s psychoeducational assessment and academic assessment were conducted by qualified and experienced professionals and complied with all procedural aspects. Hence, the said assessments were appropriate.

STUDENT v. HANFORD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT

School’s representative called student’s attorney and attempted to discourage her from expressing family’s viewpoint. Hence, the development of IEP by school did not meet the procedural requirements, and therefore does not provide Student a FAPE.