Allen Stamps v. Gwinnett County School District

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-15751 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 4, 2012
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
_________________________
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-03311-RGV
ALLEN STAMPS,
individually,
REGINA STAMPS,
individually and as Next Friends of,
H.S., Incapacitated,
S.S., a minor child,
J.S., a minor child,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
GWINNETT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
GWINNETT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
_____________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
______________________________
(June 4, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT and PRYOR, and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Allen Stamps, his wife, Regina Stamps, and their three children, H.S., S.S.,
and J.S., appeal the judgment in favor of the Gwinnett County School District. The
Stamps challenge, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act, the programs devised by the District to educate their children, who suffer from
genetic and neurological disorders, in public schools instead of their home. The
Stamps argue that the District Court failed to give adequate weight to the expert
opinion of the children's treating physician. We affirm.
"Whether an educational program provided an adequate education under the
Act "'is a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review.'" Draper v.
Atlanta Indep. Sch. Svs.. 518 F.3d 1275, 1284 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting CPv. Leon
Cntv. Sch. Bd. Fla.. 483 F.3d 1151, 1155 (11th Cir. 2007)). We review findings of
fact for clear error, id, ever mindful that the District Court is required to “accord
‘due weight’ to administrative findings.” Loren F. Ex rel. Fisher v. Atlanta Indep.
Sch. Svs.. 349 F.3d 1039, 1314 (11th Cir. 2003). “To that end, administrative
findings ‘are considered to be prima facie correct, and if a reviewing court fails to
adhere to them, it is obligated to explain why.’” Id. at 1314 n.5 (quoting MM v.
Sch. Dist. Of Greenville Cntv.. 303 F.3d 523, 531 (4th Cir. 2002)). “Where the
district court does not receive any additional evidence or testimony, this court
2
stands ‘in the same shoes as the district court in reviewing the administrative
record and may, therefore accept the conclusions of the [administrative law judge]
and district court that are supported by the record and reject those that are not.’”
Id. at 1314 (quoting M.L. v. Fed Way Sch. Dist.. 341 F.3d 1052, 1062 (9th Cir.
2003)).
The administrative law judge did not clearly err in finding that the programs
devised by the district are reasonably calculated to provide the children an
adequate education in the least restrictive environment and that the children are
capable of attending public school. Dr. Batlle's testimony did not establish that
H.S., S.S., and J.S. had to be educated at home because they had a nonspecific
immune deficiency. Batlle testified that the children's immune deficiency did not
require preventative treatment, they did not have a “bonafide primary immune
deficiency,” their immune systems “[would] improve just like anybody” with age,
and the children had not been sick in several years. Batlle's testimony was
consistent with the opinion of an expert in pediatric infectious diseases who, after
reviewing the children's medical records and speaking briefly with Batlle, found
that the children “would have the same probability of getting sick” as other
children and that, because “they did not have any severe or unusual infections,”
they should not have “any restrictions on their socialization activities, be it school
3
or going to community functions.” Although Batlle opined that home tutoring had
prevented the children from contracting illnesses, Batlle had not recommended that
tutors follow any health protocols in the Stamps' home, and the record established
that the public schools would provide a more sterile environment for the children.
In contrast to the Stamps, who disinfected only intermittently the areas of their
home and materials used for teaching, the schools regularly cleaned the children's
tools and work spaces between teaching sessions. The District placed each child in
a school that could accommodate his or her specific needs for hygiene and level of
disability, and the Executive Director of Special Education for the District testified
that, if the children became ill, they would receive “intermittent homebound
instruction.”
We AFFIRM the judgment in the favor of the District.
4