COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Bridgewater-Raynham Regional School District
BSEA# 25-04174
RULING ON BRIDGEWATER-RAYNHAM REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On October 8, 2024, Parents filed an Accelerated Hearing Request in the above-referenced matter, alleging that Bridgewater-Raynham Regional School District (“BRRSD” or “District”) denied Student a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) under IDEA and/or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Specifically, Parents allege procedural and substantive violations beginning on or about June of 2022, involving the District’s failure to conduct a three-year re-evaluation in a timely fashion and neglect in proposing an IEP without the results of such evaluation.
Accelerated status was denied on October 9, 2024, and the matter was scheduled to proceed to Hearing on November 12, 2024, under the BSEA standard timelines.
On October 16, 2024, the District filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) seeking dismissal of the case. The District asserts that it agrees to provide the services sought by Parents in their October 8, 2024 Accelerated Hearing Request, including a residential placement in a state approved program, and is willing to conduct and/or fund an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE). The District further argues that the relief it is prepared to provide would be the same outcome achievable through a hearing before the BSEA.
On October 23, 2024, Parents filed a Response opposing the District’s Motion, alleging that the District has mistaken “genuine issues of material fact” for “remedies” and contending that the District misstates the remedies they seek. Parents maintain that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the District committed per se procedural violation(s) of IDEA and state special education laws, thereby denying the Student FAPE in the least restrictive environment.
HISTORICAL, PROCEDURAL, AND FACTUAL[1] BACKGROUND:
- Student is a 16-year-old resident of Bridgewater, Massachusetts.
- Student carries diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”), Down Syndrome with an intellectual impairment, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder.
- Student entered the Bridgewater-Raynham Public Schools during the summer of 2021, and was placed in a substantially separate classroom within the district for the 2021-2022 school year.
- Beginning in the 2022-2023 school year and through the present time, Student has received special education services in a private ABA center.
- In May of 2022, Parents consented to Student’s 3-year re-evaluation.
- On August 5, 2022, the District proposed a new IEP dated June 15, 2022, to June 14, 2023, and provided Parents with a Narrative Description of the School District Proposal, that acknowledged that Student’s 3-year re-evaluation was due on November 25, 2022. This 3-year re-evaluation has yet to be conducted.
- On September 10, 2024, the District provided Parents’ counsel with a “10-day notice letter,” consistent with 20 USC Section 1415(i)(3) noting the District’s continued willingness to place Student in a Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) approved residential placement as specifically requested by Parents in emails going back to April 30, 2024. The District’s offer included placement of Student in one of the specific programs requested by the Parents (Easter Seals, Zachary Road) if Student was accepted through the school’s referral process, and also offered to forward referral packets to NECC, May Institute and other DESE approved programs that may be appropriate for Student. In addition, the 10-day notice letter stated that the District is willing and able to complete and/or fund an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE). A new consent form to proceed with the testing was forwarded to Parents, noting that “the District seeks only further clarification as to what areas of assessment [Parents] would like completed”, and further noting that the assessments can take place in one of the educational settings in which Student is placed. The District also offered to review Parents’ out-of-pocket expenses related to prior and ongoing educational services for Student.
- On October 25, 2024, the District filed a Counterclaim/ Request for Hearing, seeking substitute consent for the School District to proceed with its three-year re-evaluation of the student.
LEGAL STANDARD
- Motion for Summary Judgment:
Under Rule 56 of both the Massachusetts and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may seek summary judgment in court proceedings.[2] When proceeding before the BSEA, 801 CMR 1.01(7)(h) allows for summary judgment if “no genuine issue of fact relating to all or part of a claim or defense” exists and the moving party is “entitled to prevail as a matter of law.”[3] Presenting some factual dispute alone is not enough to oppose a properly supported motion for summary judgment; there must be a “genuine issue of material fact.”[4] A dispute is “genuine” if the evidence suggests it could reasonably favor either side, and a fact is “material” if it could affect the case outcome.[5]
The party moving for summary judgment, in this case, the District, carries the burden of proof and, therefore, needs to demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to a decision as a matter of law.[6] In response, the opposing party must provide specific evidence showing a genuine issue for hearing.[7] To survive a motion for summary judgment and proceed to a hearing, the recipient must demonstrate sufficient evidence in their favor to permit a reasonable fact finder to decide for them.[8] All evidence and inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment (herein, Parents).[9]
DISCUSSION
In its Motion, the District argues that it has agreed to provide Student with the services requested in Parents’ Hearing Request, including the overdue three-year re-evaluation, home and hospital academic services, special education, related services, and an appropriate residential placement. The District further contends that it is prepared to review and address the Parents’ claims for out-of-pocket educational expenses related to Student’s education through the present time. The District argues that its offer addresses and acquiesces to the relief sought by Parents in their BSEA Hearing Request, asserting that proceeding to a BSEA due process hearing is unnecessary.
Parents oppose the District’s Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting that genuine issues of material fact exist. Parents disagree that the District’s willingness to provide the requested relief is an indication of a lack of genuine issues of material fact. Further, Parents contend that the required educational placement and services cannot be determined without the 3-year re-evaluation being conducted. As such, Parents argue that Student’s Team is unable to develop an IEP that is reasonably calculated to provide Student with a FAPE. Parents call attention to the District’s September 12, 2024, unsigned Evaluation Consent Form, arguing that consent was previously provided by Parents on May 24, 2022, has not been withdrawn, remains valid, and therefore, the District’s procedural due process violations are ongoing.
I find that the District has failed to demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact which would entitle it to summary judgment as a matter of law. Parents are persuasive that there may be issues of material fact warranting a Hearing to ascertain whether procedural and substantive violations entitling Student to compensatory services exist, and what the compensatory relief should be. As such, the District’s Motion is DENIED. This matter will proceed to Hearing as scheduled starting on November 12, 2024, to determine whether the District’s alleged procedural and substantive violations resulted in a denial of a FAPE to Student and whether Student is entitled to compensatory services as a result of the District’s violations.
ORDER
- The District’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,
Rosa I. Figueroa
____________________________
Rosa I. Figueroa
Dated: November 4, 2024
[1] The facts delineated in this section are taken as true for purposes of this Ruling only.
[2] See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
[3] 801 CMR 1.01(7)(h).
[4] In Re: Student v. Boston Public Schools, BSEA # 24-03492 (Figueroa 2024).
[5] See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-252 (1986).
[6] See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 389 U.S. 144, 157 (1970).
[7] See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986).
[8] Id. at 249.
[9] McCarty v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 56 F.3d 313, 315 (1st Cir. 1995).