DMR Eligibility Decision by H.O. Rosenberg 2 15 05
Appeal denied by Commissioner on March 18, 2005
Keyword: intellectual function, verbal scores, age 18
The appellant was born with hypospodias and encephalocele and developed hypothalamic dysfunction, diabetes insipidus, asthma and a seizure disorder.
Hearing Officer: Deirdre Rosenberg
Counsel present for Appellant: No
Counsel present for DMR: Kim LaDue
Appellant present: Yes
Hearing Officer Decision on February 15, 2005
|
Year |
Test |
Age |
Score |
Diagnosis in report |
||
|
Verb. |
Perf. |
Full |
||||
|
1997 |
WISC-III |
17 |
83 |
53 |
- |
Due to the wide discrepancy between the verbal and performance scores, a full scale IQ was not reported. |
|
1998 |
SB-IV |
18 |
- |
- |
75 |
- |
|
2001 |
WAIS-III |
19 |
87 |
63 |
74 |
The appellant demonstrated significant deficits when performing visual perceptual, visual motor, and visual spatial tasks. |
The DMR expert also observed the weaknesses in the nonverbal areas but further testified that the verbal scores were not consistent with mental retardation.
The hearing officer found that the appellant was not mentally retarded. The appellant did not have significantly sub average intellectual function in that all of his verbal IQ scores were above 80 prior to the age of 18. The hearing officer agreed with the testimony of the DMR expert that the verbal scores in the eighties were not consistent with mental retardation. The hearing officer did not give consideration to some evidences relative to the appellant's adaptive functioning.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Rosenberg decision 2-15-05 JA_0.pdf (2.51 MB) | 2.51 MB |