DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Adamo, 2010-31

DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Adamo, 2010-31

Outcome: ineligible

Keyword: nonverbal learning disability, consistent IQ scores above 70

Hearing Officer: Adamo

Counsel present for Appellant: No

Counsel present for DDS: Maria Blanciforte

Appellant present: No

Hearing Officer decision: 2010

Commissioner letter: 2010

IQ

FUNCTIONAL ABILITY

Issue is whether Appellant is mentally retarded as defined in 115 CMR 2.01 (a person with significantly sub-average intellectual functioning existing concurrently and related to significant limitations in adaptive functioning).

Appellant is a 19-year-old male who lives with his parents.  His father is the legal guardian, and his mother has authorization to act as guardian.  The Appellant was born with a birth defect that has required numerous surgeries.  He has been diagnosed with Asperger’s, Bipolar Disorder, Psychotic Disorder NOS, OCD and Schizoaffective Disorder.  He also developed PTSD related to his medical history.  Appellant received DDS Children’s Services.

Appellant’s mother argued that Appellant is not able to care for himself, and that his higher IQ gives a false impression of his abilities.  Appellant has required inpatient psychiatric hospitalizations since age ten, and has attended a number of therapeutic schools. 

Just because Appellant received DDS Children’s Services does not mean he will qualify for DDS Adult Services.  Appellant received Children’s Services because of a “Closely Related Developmental Condition” which is not included in the criteria for Adult Services.  DDS found that Appellant has significant limitations in adaptive functioning, but these limitations are not related to sub-average intellectual functioning.  Appellant’s limitations in function are not considered unless the Appellant meets the cognitive deficit requirement of possessing an IQ score of 70 or below.  Appellant has never tested at or below 70 on any cognitive test.  Even if Appellant does have a Non Verbal Learning Disability, his full-scale scores are valid indicators of his cognitive functioning.  No evidence that Appellant has ever been diagnosed as mentally retarded.  Therefore, Appellant does not meet the DDS definition of Mental Retardation and does not qualify for services.