District Wins Right to Drop OT Services After Assessment Shows Student No Longer Needs Them

What Happened

Student is a ten-year-old boy with a specific learning disability (SLD) who transferred into Lancaster Elementary School District in September 2006 from the Los Angeles Unified School District. When he transferred, Student was receiving occupational therapy (OT) services once a week for 30 minutes, along with adapted physical education (APE) and speech and language (S/L) services. The district agreed to continue all of these services temporarily while it conducted new assessments to determine what Student actually needed in this new placement.

After assessments found that Student no longer needed APE or S/L services, the district also attempted to assess his OT needs. Student's mother interrupted the first OT evaluation and asked that it be stopped, requesting a Spanish-speaking evaluator. The district arranged a second evaluation in May 2007, with a Spanish interpreter present throughout. That assessment found Student had average fine and gross motor skills, functional handwriting, appropriate sensory processing, and no deficits that were interfering with his ability to participate in school. Based on these findings, the district's IEP team recommended at a June 2007 IEP meeting that OT services be discontinued. Mother disagreed and left the meeting before sharing her specific concerns. Because she had previously consented to OT services and now refused to agree to remove them, the district was required by law to file a due process complaint to seek authorization to implement the new IEP. Neither the parent nor any representative appeared at the hearing.

What the ALJ Found

Because the district prevailed, this section explains why the parent's implicit objection to removing OT services was not upheld.

The ALJ found that the district's OT assessment was thorough and appropriate. The occupational therapist, a board-certified OT with 15 years of experience, observed Student in the classroom, reviewed his records, consulted with his teacher, and administered standardized testing. The assessment covered fine motor precision, fine motor integration, manual dexterity, upper-limb coordination, gross motor skills, and sensory processing. Student performed in the average range across nearly all areas. His teacher confirmed in testimony that Student was one of her top students, could sustain focus for extended periods, write legibly, complete fine motor tasks like Lego assembly and 100-piece puzzles, and function independently in the classroom.

The ALJ also noted that Student had actually mastered all of his original OT goals back in 2002 — before he ever enrolled in the Lancaster district — and had continued receiving OT only because of stay-put protections during the transition and assessment process. Under the law, OT is a "related service" that must be provided only when it is necessary to help a student benefit from special education. Once the assessment showed Student no longer had functional deficits requiring therapy, the district was entitled to remove it from the IEP. The ALJ found the June 2007 IEP offered Student a FAPE without OT services.

What Was Ordered

1. The district's June 6, 2007 IEP — including the elimination of occupational therapy services — was found to offer Student a free and appropriate public education for the 2007-2008 school year.
2. The district was authorized to implement the IEP as written, without OT services.
3. No compensatory services or other relief was awarded to Student.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Districts can remove related services if a proper assessment shows they are no longer needed. OT, speech, and other related services are not permanent entitlements. They must be provided only when a student needs them to benefit from special education. If a valid assessment shows those needs have been resolved, the district can legally remove the service from the IEP — even if the parent disagrees.

2. You have the right to participate in any assessment, but interfering with an evaluation can work against your child. In this case, the parent stopped the first OT evaluation. While the district accommodated her by arranging a second evaluation with an interpreter, the interruption delayed the process. If you have concerns about how an assessment is being conducted, raise them with the IEP team — do not stop the evaluation mid-stream.

3. If you disagree with an assessment recommending removal of services, request an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE). When a district assessment concludes your child no longer needs a service, you have the right to request that the district fund an independent evaluation by an outside expert. An IEE can provide a second opinion that the IEP team must consider.

4. Attend the hearing — your absence means the ALJ only hears one side. In this case, neither the parent nor any advocate appeared at the due process hearing. The district's evidence went completely unchallenged. Even if you believe you cannot win, appearing at the hearing allows you to cross-examine the district's witnesses and present your child's perspective.