You are here

DMR Eligibility Decision by H.O. Hudgins 1 27 04

Date: 
01/27/2004
Author: 
Hudgins
lock_open

Keyword: intellectual function

Hearing Officer: Marcia A. Hudgins

Counsel present for Appellant: No

Counsel present for DMR: George M. Casey

Appellant present: No

Hearing Officer Decision on January 27, 2004

 

Year

Test

Age

Score

Diagnosis in report

Verb.

Perf.

Full

1995

WISC-III

10

-

-

-

The evaluator did not report scores but stated that the appellant scored in the low average range on the verbal scale and in the borderline range on the performance and that the full scale score was in the low average range.

2000

WISC-III

16

-

-

-

The evaluator did not report scores but stated that the appellant scored in the average range on the verbal scale and in the borderline range on the performance. She noted that the 20-point difference rendered the full scale score a meaningless measure of the appellant's overall ability.

2002

WAIS-III

18

81

85

81

The evaluator pointed out equally well developed verbal and non-verbal skills.

The ABAS completed when the appellant was 18 showed that he had significant adaptive deficits in every area of his life. The evaluation of adaptive behavior administered when he was 19 suggested that the appellant's adaptive functioning fell within the parameters of mental retardation.  The appellant's mother testified that the appellant was diagnosed with Familial Dysautonomia and sensory neuropathy. She also said that the appellant was self-abusive and had no ability to live independently. The appellant's doctor testified that the appellant's deficits had a lot to do with his Dysautonomia and that the score of 81 might be an overestimate of his intellectual functioning. He also stated that in terms of the appellant's adaptive functioning he was mentally retarded.

The DMR expert pointed out that there were significant discrepancies between the appellant's intellectual and adaptive functioning.  However, he further noted that the appellant's cognitive functioning was consistently found in at least the low average range and that other reports of the appellant's academic testing were also consistent with his IQ scores.  

The hearing officer found that the appellant was not mentally retarded, because there was no evidence of significantly sub-average intellectual functioning.

 

To save files, right click and choose 'Save Target As' or 'Save Link As'
AttachmentSize
PDF icon Hudgins decision 1-27-04 AC_0.pdf3.18 MB