Jeff Winkelman v. Parma City School District

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 08a0593n.06
Filed: October 2, 2008
Case No. 05-3886
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
JEFF WINKELMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
BEFORE: SILER, BATCHELDER, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. The parents of an autistic child sued their
local school district, alleging that the school district had failed to provide a “free appropriate public
education” (FAPE) in accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20
U.S.C. § 1400, et seq., and seeking remuneration for doing so themselves, as well as a court order
directing the school district to do so in the future. Both parties moved for judgment on the
administrative record and the district court ruled for the school district. The parents appealed.
The district court had allowed the parents to proceed pro se, but when the case reached this
court on appeal, we ordered the parents to obtain counsel, lest their appeal be dismissed. Instead,
they petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, which the Court granted. Ultimately, the Court held
that parents have rights under IDEA independent of the rights of their child, the parents’ rights
encompass the child’s right to a FAPE, and the parents may proceed pro se on their own independent
rights. On remand, we are again presented with the merits questions.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The Winkelmans first argue that the district court erred by placing the burden of proof on
them, rather than on the school district. Next, they argue that the district court erred by finding that
the school district had provided the FAPE with regard to music therapy, occupational therapy, and
speech therapy. Finally, they contend that the district court erred by approving the hearing officer’s
decision to disregard the Winkelmans’ expert-witness’s testimony as not credible.
After carefully reviewing the record, the law, and the arguments presented in the appellate
briefs, we conclude that each of the Winkelmans’ assignments of error is without merit, and that the
district court’s opinion, Winkelman v. Parma Cty. Sch. Dist., 411 F. Supp. 2d 722 (N.D. Ohio 2005),
correctly sets out the applicable law and correctly applies that law to the facts in the record. The
issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the
reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.

-- 2 of 2 --