District Wins: Shared Classroom Nurse Found Comparable to Student's One-to-One Nurse

Del Mar Union School District filed for due process after a family disagreed with the district's offer of nursing services for an 8-year-old with autism and severe epilepsy who transferred mid-year. The parent insisted the student's previous IEP required a full-time, one-to-one nurse dedicated solely to him. The ALJ ruled that the district's offer — a full-time nurse shared across a small special day class, plus a dedicated one-to-one aide — was legally "comparable" to the student's prior services, even though it was not identical.

What Happened

Student is an 8-year-old with autism, epilepsy, pica, and several other significant health conditions. He is non-verbal and experiences multiple types of seizures — including convulsive seizures occurring up to twice a month, lasting five to ten minutes — that require emergency medication (Diastat). In October 2014, the family moved from San Marcos to Del Mar, triggering a mid-year school transfer. Under California law, when a student transfers between districts, the new district must provide services "comparable" to the student's last agreed-upon IEP for up to 30 days while a new IEP is developed.

Parent registered Student with Del Mar Union and made clear that Student's previous school had provided a full-time nurse assigned exclusively to him. The district reviewed the prior IEP but interpreted the language — "nurse to monitor seizures and administer Diastat if necessary" — as not specifying one-to-one nursing. The district offered Student placement in a small special day class at Carmel Del Mar that had a full-time nurse shared among the class, plus a dedicated one-to-one instructional aide assigned to Student. Parent rejected this offer, believing Student would not be safe without his own private nurse, and Student did not attend school at all during the 2014-2015 school year. The district filed for due process to have its offer declared legally sufficient.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ agreed with Parent on one important factual point: the evidence showed that Student's previous school had in fact provided a full-time, dedicated nurse assigned specifically to him. Parent's testimony, grandmother's testimony, and billing documentation from the nursing company (Dependable Nursing, LLC, showing 7.25 hours of one-to-one LVN care daily funded by the prior district) all established this clearly. The ALJ also found that the district had an obligation to obtain these records from the prior district and could not simply ignore evidence in its possession — like IEP notes referencing a "nursing company" — that suggested one-to-one services existed.

However, the ALJ ruled that "comparable" does not mean "identical." Federal guidance from the U.S. Department of Education defines comparable services as "similar" or "equivalent" — not a carbon copy of what was provided before. The ALJ found that the district's offer met this standard because: the proposed class had only seven students with a one-to-one adult-to-student ratio; a full-time nurse was assigned to the classroom all day; Student would have had his own dedicated instructional aide; all staff received annual training on seizure action plans and Diastat administration; and the nursing demands of the class were manageable. The ALJ also noted that Parent herself had observed Student's prior nurse functioning largely as an aide — suggesting the one-to-one nurse was not always engaged in pure medical monitoring. The district prevailed on the only issue decided.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied.
The district's October 28 and November 25, 2014 offer of nursing services was found legally comparable to Student's previous IEP under California Education Code section 56325.
No compensatory services, reimbursement, or other remedies were awarded to the student or parent.

Why This Matters for Parents

"Comparable" does not mean "identical" — and that gap can hurt your child. When your child transfers to a new district, the law only requires the new district to provide services similar to the prior IEP, not a duplicate. If your child had specialized one-to-one support, the new district can legally substitute a different arrangement — like a shared nurse plus an aide — as long as it is deemed equivalent overall.
Document exactly how services are actually delivered, not just what the IEP says. The prior IEP in this case did not explicitly say "one-to-one nurse," which gave the new district room to argue it wasn't required. Always push to have the specific, real-world delivery of services written into the IEP in plain language — "one-to-one nurse assigned exclusively to this student, present at all times."
Get records from your prior district before you transfer — don't rely on the new district to do it. The district in this case obtained some records, but not the nursing company's billing documentation that proved one-to-one services existed. As a parent, bring those records yourself: contracts, billing statements, daily logs, and any written communications about how services were delivered.
A doctor's letter supporting your position carries more weight if the doctor testifies. Student's neurologist wrote a letter supporting reinstatement of a one-to-one nurse. However, because the doctor did not testify at the hearing and the district didn't receive the letter until late in the process, it had limited impact on the outcome. If medical evidence is central to your case, plan to have your child's doctor appear as a witness.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied.
The district's October 28 and November 25, 2014 offer of nursing services was found legally comparable to Student's previous IEP under California Education Code section 56325.
No compensatory services, reimbursement, or other remedies were awarded to the student or parent.

Why This Matters for Parents

"Comparable" does not mean "identical" — and that gap can hurt your child. When your child transfers to a new district, the law only requires the new district to provide services similar to the prior IEP, not a duplicate. If your child had specialized one-to-one support, the new district can legally substitute a different arrangement — like a shared nurse plus an aide — as long as it is deemed equivalent overall.
Document exactly how services are actually delivered, not just what the IEP says. The prior IEP in this case did not explicitly say "one-to-one nurse," which gave the new district room to argue it wasn't required. Always push to have the specific, real-world delivery of services written into the IEP in plain language — "one-to-one nurse assigned exclusively to this student, present at all times."
Get records from your prior district before you transfer — don't rely on the new district to do it. The district in this case obtained some records, but not the nursing company's billing documentation that proved one-to-one services existed. As a parent, bring those records yourself: contracts, billing statements, daily logs, and any written communications about how services were delivered.
A doctor's letter supporting your position carries more weight if the doctor testifies. Student's neurologist wrote a letter supporting reinstatement of a one-to-one nurse. However, because the doctor did not testify at the hearing and the district didn't receive the letter until late in the process, it had limited impact on the outcome. If medical evidence is central to your case, plan to have your child's doctor appear as a witness.