The Online Resource for Massachusetts Poverty Law Advocates

DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Adamo-7

Date: 
01/01/2010
Author: 
Jeanne Adamo

DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Adamo 2010-7

Outcome: ineligible

Keyword: psychiatric diagnoses

Hearing Officer: Jeanne Adamo

Counsel present for Appellant: no, but advocate

Counsel present for DDS: Elizabeth Duffy

Appellant present: yes

Hearing Officer decision: 2010

Commissioner letter: 2010

 

 

DATE

AGE

TEST

VERBAL

PERFORMANCE

FULL SCALE

 

2001

12

WISC-III

82

91

85

 

2005

17

WAIS-III

77

78

76

 

DATE

AGE

TEST

CONCEPTUAL

SOCIAL

PRACTICAL

GAC

2008

20

ABAS-II

84

72

88

82

 

 

            The appeal was denied because the appellant did not have the requisite IQ to meet the criteria for DDS services.  His IQ was “significantly higher” than what is required. 

            Appellant argued that he had received services his entire life, and currently lives in a group home.  He has multiple psychiatric diagnoses, and has been in trouble with the law for his sexually inappropriate behavior, which is why he has needed services.  He has been hospitalized on several occasions.  Appellant was also found incompetent to stand trial.  A 2008 forensic consult concluded that appellant is “very seriously disturbed, dangerously violent and in need of supervision and structure at the highest level.”  Appellant's father argued that his son has been receiving DCF services and will continue to need services for his entire life.    He is turning 22 in just two days and will no longer get services if he is not qualified as mentally retarded. 

            The department argued that though appellant had been in special education classes, he was considered the “smartest child in SPED”.  His intelligence is in the low average range, but they argued that this is below his actual abilities due to differential effort.  Again, they argued that his scores, though on the lower end of average, were significantly out of the range needed for DDS services. 

The hearing officer concluded that appellant was not mentally retarded pursuant to the requirements and therefore denied his appeal. 

 

To save files, right click and choose 'Save Target As' or 'Save Link As'
File Attachment: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon 2010 - 7 Adamo.pdf646.85 KB

Limit Offer