DMR Eligibility Decision by H.O. MacKieran 4 22 08

Outcome: eligible
Keyword: IQ, deafness, functional impairment
Hearing Officer: Sara MacKiernan

Counsel present for DMR: Kim LaDue
Appellant present: Yes
Hearing Officer decision: 4/22/08
Appeal confirmed by Commissioner: 5/12/08

The appellant is 20 years old.  She is a residential student at the Learning Center for Deaf Children, where she has lived since 2003.  She is profoundly deaf, having been diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss at two years of age.  She communicates in American Sign Language.

In addition to the IQ tests described below, the appellant also received the following test results:

Boston Naming Test (age 9)

Age equivalency score: 6 years 6 months

Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities Auditory Association (age 9)

Age equivalency score: 3 years 7 months

Craig Lipreading Inventory Word Recognition (age 9)

Score: 25%

Sentence Elicitation Task (age 9)

Delayed for age; grade appropriate

Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests (Passage Comprehension subtest) (age 9)

Could not complete any items

CTONI (age 16)

Pictorial Standard Score: 70

Geometric Standard Score: 96

Differential Ability Scale (age 16)

Basic Number Skills: 2nd grade equivalent

Word Reading: 1.4 grade equivalent

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale (age 18)

Communication: 62; age equivalent: 3-7 years

Daily Living: 68; age equivalent: 8-10 years

Socialization: 63; age equivalent: 3-8 years

Leiter Fluid Reasoning (age 18)

Composite score: 71

ABAS (filled out by a teacher)

General Adaptive Composite: 60

Conceptual: 63

Social: 70

Practical: 69

 

Year	Test	Age	Score			Diagnosis in report
			Verb.	Perf.	Full
1997	WISC-III	9	N/A	84	N/A	The verbal subtests were not given and therefore no full IQ score can be derived from the performance scores alone.
2003	WISC-III	16	46	106	Not listed	Deaf students are expected to have a 20-point discrepancy, but the appellant had a discrepancy of 60 points.
2007	WAIS-III	20	58	98	73	None noted.
2007	ABAS	20			60	Filled out by teacher.  No evaluation noted.

 

The hearing officer found the appellant has shown by a preponderance of evidence that she is mentally retarded and eligible for DMR supports. 

The hearing officer gave several reasons.  The appellant's ability to communicate in ASL and understand what is being communicated to her is severely limited.  Her ability to care for herself without supervision is also limited.  She cannot safely use appliances in the home without supervision and her inability to remember basic safety rules makes her vulnerable to injury.  She can only perform very simple tasks in a work setting. 

Furthermore, the appellant's academic functioning is still at the first or second grade level. Although her IQ tests are hard to evaluate given her deafness, her evaluator has come to the conclusion that is in fact mentally retarded.  She has had significant delays in all areas of functioning since childhood. 

In addition, the appellant's functional disabilities are not caused by her deafness or any known head injury.