The Online Resource for Massachusetts Poverty Law Advocates

DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Adamo, 2010-32

Date: 
01/01/2010
Author: 
Jeanne Adamo

DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Adamo, 2010-32

Outcome: ineligible

Keyword: improper test administration, PDD, test score scatter

Hearing Officer: Adamo

Counsel present for Appellant: No

Counsel present for DDS: Barbara Green Whitbeck

Appellant present: Yes

Hearing Officer decision: 2010

Commissioner letter: 2010

 

 

IQ

 

Year

Test

Age

Score

Diagnosis regarding MR in report (or info on disability affecting result of testing)

Verb.

Perf.

Full

2006

SIT-R

15

 

 

41

 

2006

TONI-3

15

 

 

95

 

2009

WISC-IV

17

 

 

72

 

2009

WAIS-IV

17

 

 

88

 

2009

WAIS-IV

18

 

 

72

 

2010

Stanford Binet

18

78

 

75

Nonverbal 74, Fluid Reasoning 106, Knowledge 77, Quantitative Reasoning 67, Visuospatial Skills 62, Working Memory 83

 

 

FUNCTIONAL ABILITY

 

Year

TESTS

Age

Score

Diagnosis regarding MR in report, if any (or info on disability affecting result of testing)

2009

VBAS-II

 

61

 

2010

VBAS-II

18

75

 

 

 

 

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 was diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD) at age three.  She attended a specialized preschool program and now at the age of 19, works with a job coach and lives with her parents who are her guardians.  Appellant’s mother testified that Appellant cannot function without supervision and support.

 

Testimony that Appellant would not be able to maintain employment without the aid of a job coach, and that without DDS services, the Appellant would be unable to continue her work-related activities. 

 

The SIT-R is a screening instrument, and therefore its results alone should not determine final placement.  The WISC and WAIS both conducted on the same day in 2009 were administered improperly.  The WISC is for testing children up to 16 years old, and Appellant was 17 at the test date.  The Appellant would likely be tired after taking the first test, but there was no way of knowing which test was administered first.  The second WAIS test, administered when the Appellant was 18, produced extremely scattered results, and was therefore unreliable.

 

The Hearing Officer gave the Stanford Binet test the most weight, in which Appellant scored a 75.  The Hearing Officer noted that just because Appellant has PDD, does not mean that Appellant is also mentally retarded. None of the clinicians who administered cognitive evaluations reported a diagnosis of Mental Retardation.  To qualify for DDS, Appellant must have significantly sub-average intellectual functioning, indicated by a valid IQ score of 70 or below.  Appellant’s pattern of IQ test results has not been proven to meet the accepted definition of Mental Retardation.  Therefore, Appellant has not met her burden of proof and DDS’s determination of ineligibility is upheld.

To save files, right click and choose 'Save Target As' or 'Save Link As'
File Attachment: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon 2010 - 32 Adamo.pdf904.64 KB

Limit Offer