The Online Resource for Massachusetts Poverty Law Advocates

DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Mackiernan, 2010-19

Date: 
01/01/2010
Author: 
Sara Mackiernan

DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Mackiernan, 2010-19

Outcome: ineligible

Keyword: consistent IQ scores above 70

Hearing Officer: Mackiernan

Counsel present for Appellant:

Counsel present for DDS: James Bergeron

Appellant present: no

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

1994

WPPSI-R

 

100

79

89

PDD, OCD, ADHD interfere with test results

1999

WISC (III)

 

89

74

80

 

2004

WISC IV

 

96

 

77

Perceptual reasoning = 82; working memory = 86; processing speed = 62.

2007

WAIS III

 

109

 

84

Perceptual reasoning = 82; working memory = 80; processing speed = 81

 

 

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).

 

Every professional who has evaluated Appellant has stated that her scores should be viewed with caution given the statistically significant difference between her performance and verbal scores.  In 1994 when Appellant was five years old she was diagnosed with PDD, OCD and ADHD.  Appellant at this time was distractible, impulsive and resistant to testing tasks; the evaluator felt Appellant would have done better had she been able to more fully participate in the testing.  During Occupational Therapy Evaluations in 1998 and 2000 Appellant demonstrated extreme distractibility and sensory defensiveness.  Appellant had difficulty completing her Speech and Language Evaluation in 2000.  The tester concluded that her deficits in pragmatic language affects her comprehension of language as well as verbal expression.

 

The Hearing Officer noted that Appellant tested above 70 in each of her four IQ tests, and that evaluators had cautioned that the scores should be considered low estimates of her abilities.  Because Appellant does not have an IQ score at or below 70, she does not meet the first prong of the DDS definition of mentally retarded and is therefore ineligible for DDS Adult Supports.

To save files, right click and choose 'Save Target As' or 'Save Link As'
File Attachment: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon 2010 - 19 mackiernan.pdf330.25 KB

Limit Offer