DMR Eligibility Decision by H.O. Hudgins 10 13 04
Outcome: Ineligible
Keyword: significantly sub-average intellectual functioning
Appellant is a 19 year old male currently living in a group home at the Protestant Guild Learning Center. He had been diagnosed with Asperger's Disorder and moderate to severe ADD.
Hearing Officer: Marcia A. Hudgins
Counsel present for Appellant: No
Counsel present for DMR: Kim Ladue
Appellant present: Yes
Hearing Officer decision on October 13, 2004
Appeal denied by Commissioner on October 26, 2004
The summary of the evidence is in the following table:
|
Year |
Test (for ex., WISC-III, WAIS-III, ABAS-II) |
Age |
Score |
Diagnosis in report |
||
|
Verb. |
Perf. |
Full |
||||
|
- |
WPPSI |
5 |
- |
- |
- |
Tester stated that appellant's cognitive functioning was in the average range with no significant differences between verbal skills and visual motor coordination and perceptual organization skills. |
|
- |
WISC-III |
7 |
92 |
112 |
101 |
At the time, appellant was hospitalized for psychiatric reasons. Clinician noted that the large discrepancy between appellant's verbal and performance IQ scores suggested a learning disability, but that appellant's overall intellectual functioning was in the average range. |
|
1999 |
WISC-III |
15 |
97 |
99 |
97 |
Clinician noted that appellant's cognitive functioning was within the average range in both the verbal and performance sections. |
When appellant was almost 4 years old, he was tested using the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities. He scored a verbal scale index of 50, a perceptual-performance scale index of 32, a quantitative scale index of 37, and a general cognitive index scale of 88. The clinician concluded that appellant was functioning at the low level range.
When appellant was 18 years old, his adaptive skills were evaluated using the ABAS. The sum of appellant's scaled score was 62. His general adaptive composite was 76. The clinician noted that appellant's adaptive skills in the areas of health and safety and social were significantly deficient.
Susanna Chan, DMR's Regional Eligibility Manager, testified that appellant was not eligible for DMR services because his intellectual functioning was not significantly sub-average, as characterized by IQ scores of 70-75 or below. Dr. Perry, DMR's expert, testified that appellant possessed close to average academic potential and that his intellectual functioning was generally in the average range.
The hearing officer found that appellant did not meet the definition of mental retardation. She concluded that none of the evidence suggested that appellant had significantly sub-average intellectual functioning. Even though appellant was found eligible for DMR services when he was 14 years old, he is not eligible for adult services because the criteria for adult services are different from the criteria for children's services.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Hudgins decision 10-13-04 SP_0.pdf (2.38 MB) | 2.38 MB |