1. Case Law Review: Legal Decisions with Impact for OT Rebecca E
Case Law Review: Legal Decisions with Impact for OT Rebecca E. Argabrite Grove, MS, OTR/L, FAOTA Patrick T. Andriano, Esq.

2. APPLICATION OF LRE TO THE PROVISION OF RELATED SERVICES
Case law and administrative decisions interpreting the implementation of the least restrictive environment (LRE) provision in the delivery of various therapies (e.g., occupational therapy, speech therapy, physical therapy) affords school divisions some flexibility in meeting this requirement depending on how well the related services in question lend themselves to being administered on school grounds.
Another important consideration is whether the student's unique needs can be better achieved with group or individual attention. In this context, placement in less restrictive environments may be contraindicated for some students given the level and intensity of the therapy needed by the student. 
APPLICATION OF LRE TO THE PROVISION OF RELATED SERVICES

3. Midland Indep. Sch. Dist., 22 IDELR 745 (SEA TX 1995) (noting that the district's provision of  OT services to an 8-year-old with cerebral palsy and a speech disability for 30 minutes weekly at a nearby hospital was not a violation of the LRE requirement because the remainder of the student's instruction consisted of a regular education placement).
B.R. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 60 IDELR 102 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (finding that because a student would have received small-group OT in her educational placement rather the one-on-one OT she needed to make educational progress, the district denied the student FAPE).
CASE REVIEW

4. A statement of the anticipated frequency, location, and duration of related services that will be provided must be included in the IEP. 8 VAC (G)(7). 
Although the IDEA does not expressly require the IEP to specify the exact amount of services in terms of hours and minutes, according to the US Dept. of Education, precision is the best practice to the extent the nature of a student's disability and needed services permits quantification in terms of hours and minutes on a daily basis. Letter to Copenhaver, 21 IDELR 1183 (OSEP 1994). 
AMOUNT OF SERVICES

5. Okaloosa County Sch. Dist
Okaloosa County Sch. Dist., 114 LRP (SEA FL 06/24/14) (determining that a district violated the IDEA's procedural requirements when it failed to specify the duration of a student's OT sessions).

6. HOMEBOUND INSTRUCTION
Nothing in the IDEA requires a school division to provide a student with a full day of home instruction or to provide the same amount of special education instruction the student would have received while attending school. 
The type of services provided to a student with a disability in the home also must be based on a student's needs.
A division that denies certain services to students with disabilities on the grounds that they are not available to students on homebound instruction may find itself liable for a denial of FAPE. Cincinnati City Sch. Dist., 111 LRP (SEA OH 08/30/11) ("If the IEP team believes that the student requires OT and PT, the IEP team must include these services regardless of the student's placement on home instruction."). 
The nature of a student's disability or illness may limit availability for instruction. For this reason, IEP team should consider any physical or mental factors that may impede instruction when determining scheduling and duration of homebound services.
HOMEBOUND INSTRUCTION

7. EVALUATIONS FOR ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY
There are no federal or state regulations specifying the content of an AT assessment or who should conduct it. Clark County Sch. Dist., 112 LRP 1381 (SEA NV 10/10/11).
An AT evaluation may not be necessary if district can assess all of student's identified and suspected areas of need through other types of evaluations. See, e.g., District of Columbia Pub. Schs., 67 IDELR 134 (SEA DC 2015) (finding that although the parent wanted an AT assessment to analyze the student's organizational issues, the district had already conducted two OT evaluations that pinpointed the student's "poor motor coordination" as the source of his memory and planning problems). 
EVALUATIONS FOR ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY

8. On October 30, 2018, the VDOE updated its Assistive Technology Consideration Guide and the Virginia Assistive Technology Resource Guide.
Available at the following link:
RESOURCES

9. ARTISTIC AND CULTURAL SERVICES
Artistic and cultural services, such as music therapy, may count as related services in a student's IEP. As with all provisions of the IEP, the IEP team must make this determination in light of the student's needs. Questions and Answers on Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), Evaluations, and Reevaluations, 111 LRP (OSERS 09/01/11). 
See, e.g., N.K. and L.W. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 61 IDELR 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (ruling that a student did not need music therapy to receive FAPE because OT, PT, and speech therapy were enough to increase his ability to function in society).
ARTISTIC AND CULTURAL SERVICES

10. Student Refusal of OT Services
Case name: T.M. v. District of Columbia, 64 IDELR 197 (D.D.C. 2014).
Ruling: The District of Columbia did not violate the IDEA by failing to provide all of the OT services required by a 9-year-old boy's IEP or by allowing the therapist to hold some sessions in the student's special education classroom.
What it means: Some students with disabilities may resist therapists' efforts to provide related services. The best course of action in such situations is to document the student's refusal to participate, contact the parents promptly, and convene an IEP meeting to address the matter. Because the student in this case refused to leave his special education classroom, the occupational therapist began providing services in the special ed classroom. The district could have headed off any confusion about the IEP's call for OT services "outside the general education setting" by talking with the parents about the student's reluctance to leave the classroom.
Student Refusal of OT Services

11. HANDWRITING Case name: Hudson Pub. Schs., 57 IDELR 178 (SEA MA 2011).
Ruling: A Massachusetts district did not violate the IDEA by failing to offer OT services to a 13-year-old boy with a neurological disability. Although the student had some difficulties with fine motor skills, an IHO found no evidence that those difficulties adversely impacted the student's educational performance.
What it means: Poor handwriting alone will not entitle a student with a disability to OT services. Only if the student's fine motor deficits have an adverse impact on his education will the district have an obligation to provide OT. In this case, the parents failed to show that the student's fine motor deficiencies impeded his ability to access the curriculum or make educational progress. Moreover, the district showed that the student's handwriting improved after it implemented an OT evaluator's suggestions for addressing handwriting weaknesses in daily classroom work.
HANDWRITING