The Online Resource for Massachusetts Poverty Law Advocates

DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Hudgins 2010-35

Date: 
01/01/2010
Author: 
Hudgins

 

DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Marcia Hudgins 2010 -35

Outcome: ineligible

Keyword: high IQ

Hearing Officer: Marica A. Hudgins

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

2007

Vineland II

 

 

 

 

Appellant’s adaptive behavior composite score was well within the moderate low range. Her Functional Daily living skills fell with the Moderately low range; he functional communication skills fell in the adequate range; her socialization skills fell within the moderately low range and her functional motor skills fell with the adequate range

2009

WISV-IV

7

 

 

89

They noted that the results of the cognitive testing indicated a developmentally based language deficit with receptive, expressive and amnestic feature that have impacted the child’s academic achievement.

2009

KTEA II

7

 

 

 

She made gains in speech intelligibly and continued to have mild/moderate delays in receptive and express language area.

 

The Appellant at the age of 5 and 7 showed that her overall cognitive abilities were developing and within the average ranger for her age. Appellant also scored and 89 on the WISV-IV test, well above the required score of 70.

 

Appellant also does not meet the criteria for a closely related condition. Although there was documentary evidence presented that offered a PDD NOS diagnosis, the evidence presented at hearing does not lead to the conclusion that Appellant has such a condition. An expert did testify who offered the diagnosis however, provided no test results to support it.

 

Appellant also claimed and provided testimony that appellant had been found eligible for Autism services however, there was no evidence presented that met the criteria for the services.

The evidence at the hearing showed appellants difficulties in language, motor skills, an anxiety disorder and OCD. None of these are related to a developmental condition as defined by DDS. 

 

To save files, right click and choose 'Save Target As' or 'Save Link As'
File Attachment: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon 2010 - 35 Hudgins.pdf677.58 KB

Limit Offer