Morgan Hill USD Failed to Assess or Serve Severely Disabled Student for Over a Year

A student with traumatic brain injury, cerebral palsy, and severe communication impairments went without required assessments or related services for over a year after Morgan Hill Unified School District signed an assessment plan. The District failed to coordinate assessors, left a school psychologist in charge who expected the mother to arrange her own child's assessments, and never convened an IEP meeting. The ALJ found widespread FAPE denials and ordered substantial compensatory education in assistive technology, orientation and mobility, vision services, and physical therapy.

What Happened

The student is a young woman with glycogen storage disease who suffered a catastrophic pump failure at age three and a half during sleep, resulting in traumatic brain injury, cerebral palsy, and a seizure disorder. She communicated only through limited vocalizations and a single hand gesture, required a feeding tube for nutrition, and could not sit independently or move without substantial physical assistance. Despite these profound needs, the only signed IEP in effect at all relevant times dated back to January 22, 2002 — a document that contained no measurable goals and offered only five hours per week of home instruction from a general education teacher with no special education training.

In October 2008, the District and family entered a settlement agreement requiring the District to arrange and fund assessments in assistive technology (AT), augmentative communication, speech and language, physical therapy (PT), occupational therapy (OT), orientation and mobility, and other areas, with an IEP to follow by October 31, 2008. The District signed an assessment plan with the mother in November 2008, but then essentially did nothing for months. The school psychologist assigned to coordinate assessments sent emails asking the mother where things stood and expected her to contact assessors herself — even though the District had not executed contracts with several of them. By the time the second due process complaint was filed in October 2009, most assessments were still incomplete or had never begun, no IEP meeting had been noticed, and the student had received no PT, AT, augmentative communication, or orientation and mobility services from the District.

What the District Did Wrong

Failed to complete assessments within the legally required 60 days. After the mother signed the assessment plan on November 3, 2008, the District had 60 days to complete assessments and hold an IEP meeting. Instead, speech and OT assessments were not conducted until June 2009, PT assessment did not begin until July 2009, and the AT/augmentative communication assessment was not initiated until September 2009 — ten months after the signed plan.
Left assessors unaware of the purpose of their assessments. The occupational therapist and speech-language pathologist from CSLOT both believed they were conducting private assessments at the mother's request, not District assessments to develop an IEP. Their reports were therefore incomplete and educationally useless, and the District — not the mother — was responsible for this fundamental breakdown.
Delegated responsibility to a school psychologist who expected the mother to manage the process. The special education director went on extended family leave and assigned Dr. Fried to oversee assessments. Dr. Fried's own emails showed he was asking the mother what was happening with assessments and directing her to take action — the opposite of what the IDEA requires.
Never noticed or convened an IEP meeting during the relevant period. Despite having no current IEP and a settlement agreement requiring one by October 31, 2008, the District did not notice a single IEP team meeting during the entire period at issue. The ALJ rejected the argument that the mother's difficult communication style excused this obligation.
Denied the student related services she needed throughout the period. Because there were no completed assessments and no IEP, the student received no PT, no AT or augmentative communication services, and no orientation and mobility or vision services during the relevant period — services that expert assessors confirmed she needed throughout.
Failed to provide AT equipment. The student's ability to make any choices or communicate depended on implementing a basic switch-access system and augmentative communication strategies. The District did not supply any such equipment or services.

What Was Ordered

The District must reimburse the mother $109.00 for an AT switch she purchased in December 2008, which had been recommended in a prior District-funded assessment.
As compensatory education, the District must provide 102 hours of AT/augmentative communication consultation and/or direct services (calculated at 2.5 hours per week for 41 weeks of school during the denial period).
As compensatory education, the District must provide 82 hours of consultation and/or direct instruction from a teacher of the visually impaired.
As compensatory education, the District must provide 82 hours of direct orientation and mobility services.
As compensatory education, the District must provide 82 forty-five-minute physical therapy sessions (two sessions per week for 41 weeks).
All compensatory services must be delivered by a California non-public agency in the student's home, used before the student reaches maximum special education eligibility age, and forfeited if the student exits special education or permanently moves outside the District.
Denied: Reimbursement for private PT provider (Dawol), "Vital Stim" swallowing therapy, horse therapy, wheelchair parts and maintenance, books and school supplies, computer monitor, neurofeedback supplies, and "theratogs" garment — none of these were found to be required components of a FAPE.
Denied: Compensatory OT and speech therapy sessions recommended by CSLOT, because the student did not prove what her needs were in those areas or what frequency of services would have been appropriate.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district cannot blame parents for its own failures to assess. The ALJ made clear that even when a parent is difficult to reach by phone, the District has an affirmative legal duty to conduct assessments, contract with assessors, and follow through — not to wait for the parent to organize the process. If the District is not making contact in writing and taking concrete steps, document that and raise it as a FAPE violation.
Assessors must know they are conducting a District assessment for IEP purposes. If your district hires someone to assess your child, confirm in writing that the assessor understands the report must meet IDEA standards and be used to develop IEP goals and services. An assessment done without this understanding may be legally worthless.
No IEP meeting = no FAPE, full stop. The law requires an IEP in effect at the start of every school year and an annual review. If your district has not held an IEP meeting or has not given your child a current IEP with real goals and services, that is a denial of FAPE regardless of any other circumstances.
For compensatory education, you need expert evidence about what your child needed and for how long. The student lost her claims for OT and speech compensatory education because no expert testified to what appropriate services would have looked like. If you are seeking make-up services, bring in qualified professionals who can say specifically what your child should have received and at what frequency — do not rely solely on incomplete assessments.
Reimbursement for privately obtained services requires proof of appropriateness, qualifications, and payment. The student's large claim for private PT reimbursement was denied partly because the therapist's credentials were unverified, no invoices or payment records were produced, and the type of therapy was not matched to the child's educational needs. Keep detailed records: invoices, receipts, cancelled checks, and documentation of provider qualifications, especially when you are already in litigation seeking reimbursement.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

Failed to complete assessments within the legally required 60 days. After the mother signed the assessment plan on November 3, 2008, the District had 60 days to complete assessments and hold an IEP meeting. Instead, speech and OT assessments were not conducted until June 2009, PT assessment did not begin until July 2009, and the AT/augmentative communication assessment was not initiated until September 2009 — ten months after the signed plan.
Left assessors unaware of the purpose of their assessments. The occupational therapist and speech-language pathologist from CSLOT both believed they were conducting private assessments at the mother's request, not District assessments to develop an IEP. Their reports were therefore incomplete and educationally useless, and the District — not the mother — was responsible for this fundamental breakdown.
Delegated responsibility to a school psychologist who expected the mother to manage the process. The special education director went on extended family leave and assigned Dr. Fried to oversee assessments. Dr. Fried's own emails showed he was asking the mother what was happening with assessments and directing her to take action — the opposite of what the IDEA requires.
Never noticed or convened an IEP meeting during the relevant period. Despite having no current IEP and a settlement agreement requiring one by October 31, 2008, the District did not notice a single IEP team meeting during the entire period at issue. The ALJ rejected the argument that the mother's difficult communication style excused this obligation.
Denied the student related services she needed throughout the period. Because there were no completed assessments and no IEP, the student received no PT, no AT or augmentative communication services, and no orientation and mobility or vision services during the relevant period — services that expert assessors confirmed she needed throughout.
Failed to provide AT equipment. The student's ability to make any choices or communicate depended on implementing a basic switch-access system and augmentative communication strategies. The District did not supply any such equipment or services.

What Was Ordered

The District must reimburse the mother $109.00 for an AT switch she purchased in December 2008, which had been recommended in a prior District-funded assessment.
As compensatory education, the District must provide 102 hours of AT/augmentative communication consultation and/or direct services (calculated at 2.5 hours per week for 41 weeks of school during the denial period).
As compensatory education, the District must provide 82 hours of consultation and/or direct instruction from a teacher of the visually impaired.
As compensatory education, the District must provide 82 hours of direct orientation and mobility services.
As compensatory education, the District must provide 82 forty-five-minute physical therapy sessions (two sessions per week for 41 weeks).
All compensatory services must be delivered by a California non-public agency in the student's home, used before the student reaches maximum special education eligibility age, and forfeited if the student exits special education or permanently moves outside the District.
Denied: Reimbursement for private PT provider (Dawol), "Vital Stim" swallowing therapy, horse therapy, wheelchair parts and maintenance, books and school supplies, computer monitor, neurofeedback supplies, and "theratogs" garment — none of these were found to be required components of a FAPE.
Denied: Compensatory OT and speech therapy sessions recommended by CSLOT, because the student did not prove what her needs were in those areas or what frequency of services would have been appropriate.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district cannot blame parents for its own failures to assess. The ALJ made clear that even when a parent is difficult to reach by phone, the District has an affirmative legal duty to conduct assessments, contract with assessors, and follow through — not to wait for the parent to organize the process. If the District is not making contact in writing and taking concrete steps, document that and raise it as a FAPE violation.
Assessors must know they are conducting a District assessment for IEP purposes. If your district hires someone to assess your child, confirm in writing that the assessor understands the report must meet IDEA standards and be used to develop IEP goals and services. An assessment done without this understanding may be legally worthless.
No IEP meeting = no FAPE, full stop. The law requires an IEP in effect at the start of every school year and an annual review. If your district has not held an IEP meeting or has not given your child a current IEP with real goals and services, that is a denial of FAPE regardless of any other circumstances.
For compensatory education, you need expert evidence about what your child needed and for how long. The student lost her claims for OT and speech compensatory education because no expert testified to what appropriate services would have looked like. If you are seeking make-up services, bring in qualified professionals who can say specifically what your child should have received and at what frequency — do not rely solely on incomplete assessments.
Reimbursement for privately obtained services requires proof of appropriateness, qualifications, and payment. The student's large claim for private PT reimbursement was denied partly because the therapist's credentials were unverified, no invoices or payment records were produced, and the type of therapy was not matched to the child's educational needs. Keep detailed records: invoices, receipts, cancelled checks, and documentation of provider qualifications, especially when you are already in litigation seeking reimbursement.