Hearing Officer Profile

Carl Schmidt

VDOE Case No. 25-175

Competing positions are identifiable. Schmidt's August 4, 2025 ruling states his own relevance and jurisdiction rationale; the Parent's filings challenge the constitutional and IDEA effect of those restrictions.

Parent's constitutional and IDEA theory

In VDOE Case No. 25-175, Hearing Officer Carl Schmidt permitted an evidentiary hearing but substantially limited evidence the Parent sought to develop beforehand. The Parent contends those rulings excluded evidence concerning APS institutional practices, VDOE administration, prior proceedings, and hearing-officer oversight that was needed to explain how A.N.'s FAPE claims had been fragmented and delayed.

Concrete procedural record

Corporate representative subpoena. Schmidt's August 4, 2025 written ruling granted APS's motion to quash a subpoena seeking a corporate representative.

Other subpoenas. The same ruling denied subpoenas for Executive Secretary Karl R. Hade, former Hearing Officer Frank Aschmann, and a VDOE records custodian/designee because Schmidt concluded they could not provide relevant information within the FAPE issues before him.

Prior proceedings excluded. Schmidt denied expansion of the record to include prior VDOE proceedings, verified challenges, the Aschmann-related mandamus matter, Section 504 materials, and related FOIA records, stating those materials would not affect the FAPE outcome.

Alleged procedural manipulation

The Parent alleges that defining institutional evidence as irrelevant before permitting its asserted connection to FAPE to be developed prevented proof of whether prior procedural failures themselves affected A.N.'s rights. Schmidt's stated rationale was that those witnesses and records were outside the issues properly before him.

Project sources

August 4, 2025 Ruling Re Parent's Subpoena and Record Requests, VDOE 25-175; Verified Petition for Reassignment; Motion to Expand the Administrative Record.