(July 1, 2010 - September 30, 2010)

In cases where MSDE has been informed that a hearing decision is being appealed in accordance with Section 615(i) of IDEA 2004, an asterisk (*) is placed next to the OAH Case #.  The civil or district court number of the case is provided when available.

Public Agency	OAH Case # ______________	Decision Date	Hearing Requested By	Issues
Allegany County Public Schools	10-H-ALLG-20943	7/29/2010	Public Agency	Identification/Evaluation/Reevaluation-Part B, IEP Development/Review/Revision
Decision Summary ____________	The ALJ determined that the school system's evaluation was inappropriate and the parent is entitled to an independent educational evaluation at public expense that will assess the student in all areas of suspected disability including a specific learning disability.

Public Agency	OAH Case # ______________	Decision Date	Hearing Requested By	Issues
Baltimore City Public Schools	10-H-CITY-20229	8/6/2010	Parent/Guardian	Placement/LRE/complaint requesting less restrictive
Decision Summary ____________	The ALJ concluded that the IEP and placement proposed by the school system for the 2010-2011 school year were appropriate.

Public Agency	OAH Case # ______________	Decision Date	Hearing Requested By	Issues
Montgomery County Public Schools	10-H-MONT-11603	7/9/2010	Parent/Guardian	IEP Development/Review/Revision, Placement
Decision Summary ____________	The ALJ concluded that the school the student attended during the due process hearing did not violate "stay put." The ALJ also concluded that the IEP and placement are appropriate to provide the student FAPE and, therefore, denied parents request for continuned placement at a nonpublic.

Public Agency	OAH Case # ______________	Decision Date	Hearing Requested By	Issues
Montgomery County Public Schools	*10-H-MONT-16716	9/17/2010	Parent/Guardian	IEP Development/Review/Revision, Tuition Reimbursement
Decision Summary ____________	The ALJ concluded that the IEP for the 2009-2010 school year and the IEP for the 2010-2011 school years were appropriate and denied the parents request for tuition reimbursement for the nonpublic school in which they had placed the student for both the 2009-2010 and the 2010-2011 school years. Appeal information: US District Court Case #11-cv-0124 (JFM)

Public Agency	OAH Case # ______________	Decision Date	Hearing Requested By	Issues
Montgomery County Public Schools	10-H-MONT-18299	9/8/2010	Public Agency	Identification/Evaluation/Reevaluation-Part B, IEP Development/Review/Revision
Decision Summary ____________	The ALJ concluded that the school system made reasonable efforts to obtain the parent’s consent to conduct an initial evaluation of the student but the parent refused to provide consent. The ALJ concluded that the school system established grounds to override the parent's refusal to provide consent and may conduct assessments without the parent’s consent.

Public Agency	OAH Case # ______________	Decision Date	Hearing Requested By	Issues
Montgomery County Public Schools	10-H-MONT-23736	9/16/2010	Parent/Guardian	IEP Implementation-Placement, IEP Implementation-speech/language services
Decision Summary ____________	The ALJ concluded that the parent did not prove that the student failed to receive the correct amount of speech-language therapy services during the 2009-2010 school year. Additionally, the ALJ concluded that the parent did not prove that the school system's IEP for the 2010-2011 school year was inadequate to provide a free appropriate public education. The ALJ dismissed the case.

Public Agency	OAH Case # ______________	Decision Date	Hearing Requested By	Issues
Montgomery County Public Schools	10-H-MONT-28248	9/29/2010	Parent/Guardian	IEP Development/Review/Revision, Placement
Decision Summary ____________	The ALJ concluded that the IEP and placement for the 2010-2011 school year were appropriate.

Public Agency	OAH Case # ______________	Decision Date	Hearing Requested By	Issues
Worcester County Public Schools	10-H-WORC-17038	7/7/2010	Parent/Guardian	ESY Determination
Decision Summary ____________	The ALJ concluded that the parents' due process hearing request was rendered moot when the school system provided the ESY services that the parents sought. The ALJ dismissed the hearing request.