The Online Resource for Massachusetts Poverty Law Advocates

DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Adamo and Silver 2010-33

Date: 
01/01/2010
Author: 
Adamo and Silver

2010 - 33

DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Adamo/Silver

Outcome: ineligible

Keyword: verbal learning disability, subtest score discrepancy

Hearing Officer: Jeanne Adamo / Elizabeth Silver

Counsel present for Appellant: Michael J. Roy

Counsel present for DDS: John C. Geenty, Jr.

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

1993

WPPSI-R

6

76

89

81

 

1998

WISC-III

8

67

87

 

 

2002

WAIS-III

12

69

78

71

Significantly impaired emotional and behavioral Control with poor social relatedness, diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder.

2006

WISC-IV

15

 

 

71

 

2009

WASI

18

83

102

91

 

 

WIAT-II

18

 

 

 

Bds /average scores on both word reading (79) and spelling (78) and an extremely low/borderline score of 69 on Numerical Operations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FUNCTIONAL ABILITY

Year

TESTS

Age

Score

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

 

BASC-II

18

 

Behaviors similar to those displayed by age peers who experience disorders such as ADHD and depression

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appellant failed by the preponderance of the evidence to show that he meets the definition of mental retardation. The Department conceded that the Appellant meet the criteria in regards to Adaptive Functioning. Departments Doctor concluded that based on the above test results that Appellant did not meet the standards.

 

Appellants Doctor, challenged above conclusion and urged that two full scale I scores of 71 met the Departments criteria for eligibility.

 

Appellants IQ scores ranged from 71 to 91, and all tests appear to be valid. Although the Appellant has two scores just marginally above the department criteria, he has scores of 81 and 91 thus making him not mentally retarded. Appellant has serious adaptive functioning limitation buy these limitations would result from other diagnosis not mental retardation.

 

In making the determination that the appellant was not mentally retarded, the department’s doctor, stated that the department’s criteria focuses on cognitive power and the application of that power. He said that there are many reasons why a full scale score would not pertain. One is when there is a large discrepancy among the factor scores so the full scale is not interpretable; another is if some other diagnosis influences the test results. Summarizing that Mental retardation does not have to do with attention issues, executive functioning issues, psychiatric issues, motivational issues or any other issues in the DSM. Appellants more accurate diagnosis is a verbal learning disability.

 

To save files, right click and choose 'Save Target As' or 'Save Link As'
File Attachment: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon 2010 - 33 Silver.pdf1.06 MB

Limit Offer