Adam Wasserman Site

DUE PROCESS DECISIONS


DISCLAIMER
This information is not legal advice or meant to give any guidance to your own particular circumstances. This information is provided for reference and teaching purposes only. Please do not apply these summaries to your legal concerns or challenges.

Student v. PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Significant areas of law

What constitute as a major discrepancy between the services required by the child’s IEP and the services offered by the District? A major discrepancy between the services required by the child’s IEP and the services offered by the District is denial of FAPE.

Read More...

Student v. TWIN RIVERS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Significant areas of law

Failure to provide adequate specialized instructions and related services despite having complete information about Student’s needs is denial of FAPE.

Read More...

Student v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Significant areas of law

Failure to assess student for eligibility under the category of emotional disturbance is not denial of FAPE unless student has a condition exhibiting one or more of the characteristics provided under 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(4); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3030, subd. (b)(4) over a long period of time, and to a marked degree, that adversely affects a child's educational performance.

Read More...

Student v. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Significant areas of law

District is not required to provide student a FAPE during student’s private placement by parents.

Read More...

Student v. GATEWAY COLLEGE AND CAREER ACADEMY

Significant areas of law

Student is not entitled to receive IEP services comparable to his/her last implemented IEP where Student does not transfer from one public school to another within the same state during the same academic year or between school years.

Read More...
1 3 4 5 6 7 12