DMR Eligibility Decision by H.O. Deirdre Rosenberg 8/6/07

Outcome: Approved

Keyword: Mixed Receptive-Expressive Language Disorder, co-existing conditions, discrepancy between sub-test scores

Hearing Officer: Deirdre Rosenberg

Counsel present for Appellant:

Counsel present for DMR: Douglas White

Hearing Officer decision: 8/6/07

Appeal confirmed by Commissioner: 9/6/07

The appellant was a 19 year old man with a history of neglect and physical/sexual abuse. His biological mother’s sister adopted him at the age of two. He was placed in a residential placement at the age of eight. He was placed a residential facility for children with inappropriate sexual behaviors. He was diagnosed with ADHD, PTSD, Pedophilia, Pervasive Development Disorder NOS, and Mixed Receptive-Expressive Language Disorder.

At the age of 14, he was administered the WISC-III. His full-scale IQ was a 66. His academic performance measured by the WRAT-3 was very poor.

At the age of 17, he was administered the WISC-IV. His full-scale IQ was a 58.

At the age of 18, he was administered the WAIS-III. His full-scale IQ was a 67.

A report from Appellant’s residential facility was admitted into evidence. The report showed that he was performing well in school, had read Hamlet, but was diagnosed with Mild Mental Retardation. The record also showed that his expressive and receptive language skills were significantly below average.

The DMR eligibility psychologist acknowledged that all FSIQ scores were below 70, meeting the eligibility requirement of an IQ of 70 or below. However, she further  testified, citing two evaluations entered into evidence, that Appellant’s cognitive impairments were the result of Mixed Receptive-Expressive Language Disorder, not Mental Retardation. She disagreed with a MR diagnosis, noting a discrepancy between verbal IQ of 64 and performance IQ of 78.

The hearing officer that appellant most likely suffered from both Mixed Receptive-Expressive Language Disorder and Mental Retardation. The hearing officer pointed out that both diagnoses may exist together. She further concluded that she was reluctant to accept the DMR psychologist’s determination of ineligibility when his FSIQ scores in three assessments were all below 70.

Thus, the hearing officer found in favor of the Appellant.