A multi-handicapped child appeals the district courts ruling that the local education authority provided him the "free appropriate public education" required under the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA). We find that the district court applied the correct legal standard in evaluating whether the childs education program was appropriate, the child was not presumptively entitled to receive a full school day of programming, and the court was not required to give greater weight to the testimony of the childs physician than to the testimony of the childs school therapists and teachers. We therefore affirm the holding of the district court.
