DMR Eligibility Decision by H.O. MacKiernan 1 18 08

Keyword: emotional stability during testing

Outcome: ineligible

Hearing Officer: Sara Mackiernan

Counsel present for Appellant:

Counsel present for DMR:

Hearing Officer decision: January 18, 2008

Appeal confirmed by Commissioner: January 31, 2008

SUMMARY

The issue is whether the applicant met the eligibility criteria for DMR supports by reason of mental retardation as set out in 115 CMR 6.04(1).

Appellant is now 20 years old.  On 12/1/06, appellant’s mother was appointed Guardian of his person and estate.  She is also responsible for monitoring appellant’s use of antipsychotic medication according to the court approved Treatment Plan.  The Guardianship Petition states that appellant is unable to care for himself “by reason of mental illness”. 

Appellant has a history of emotional abuse and neglect, sexual abuse and severe depression with suicidal ideation.  He has been prone to command hallucinations during severe bouts of depression.  Appellant has been in special education for most of his academic career.  Appellant has also participated in out of home placements in foster care, residential programs, and psychiatric hospitalization. 

The record shows two psychological evaluations completed in 2006.  Dr. John Carvotta completed the first psychological evaluation on May 11.  His tests show that Appellant had a borderline IQ.  Additionally, appellant had signs of low self esteem and depression (including suicidal ideation). 

The second psychological evaluation was completed by Dr. Steven Hirsch on September 21.  His tests showed marked improvement in Appellant’s IQ scores.  This was attributed to a more stable emotional functioning at the time of testing.  Dr. Hirsch’s diagnoses include major depressive disorder (recurrent, severe); post traumatic stress disorder; learning disorder; history of sexual abuse and neglect.  Dr. Hirsch specifically states in his report that Appellant “is not mentally retarded.”

In light of the evidence, the Hearing Officer concluded that Appellant does not meet the criteria for eligibility for services from the Department of Mental Retardation.