DMR Eligibility Decision by H.O. Rosenberg 2 19 08
Outcome: ineligible
Keyword: IQ, fine motor impaiment, cognitive and visual perceptual delays
Hearing Officer: Deirdre Rosenberg
Counsel present for DMR: Patricia Oney
Appellant present: Yes
Hearing Officer decision: 2/19/08
Appeal confirmed by Commissioner: 3/7/08
The appellant is a 21-year old man living with his adoptive parents in Fiskdale. He suffered chronic abuse and neglect from his biological parents. He has been diagnosed with cognitive and visual perceptual delays, and has some fine motor impairments. He currently attends a transitional program to prepare him for independent living.
Two assessments conducted in 1993 and 1994 are not in the record. These are said to be consistent with the assessment conducted in 1998. Five assessments were entered into evidence.
|
Year |
Test |
Age |
Score |
Diagnosis in report |
||
|
Verb. |
Perf. |
Full |
||||
|
1991 |
WPPSI |
4 |
79 |
77 |
76 |
The evaluator stated that he believed these scores understated the appellant's intellectual abilities, likely due to an "early environmental lack of stimulation." |
|
1992 |
Stanford-Binet |
5 |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Scores on Stanford-Binet fall into different categories. His scores were: The evaluator stated that although the overall scores put the appellant in the mildly mentally retarded range, the low quantitative score skewed results. His actual potential may be as high as in the average range. |
|
1998 |
WISC-III |
12 |
78 |
59 |
66 |
The evaluator noted that the same pattern of strong verbal scores and weak performance scores continued. The evaluator also stated that the appellant had made a "remarkable adjustment" over time. |
|
1999 |
WISC-III |
13 |
84 |
65 |
73 |
The near-20 point discrepancy between verbal and performance scores mean his Full Scale IQ score should be taken with caution. The evaluator described the appellant's cognitive capabilities as "ranging from average to barely functional." |
|
2003 |
WISC-III |
16 |
74 |
57 |
63 |
There was again a significant difference between verbal and performance scores. The evaluator stated that these scores "indicate that his present overall level of cognitive functioning is in the Intellectually Deficient range." |
DMR eligibility psychologist testified at appellant's Fair Hearing that his "intellectual abilities as assessed are above regulatory ranges." Her opinion was that the appellant's impaired motor skills, as well as visual and perceptual deficits, contributed more to his low performance scores than intellectual deficiencies.
The hearing officer found that the appellant failed to show that he meets DMR eligibility criteria. At the time the appellant applied for DMR supports, DMR was using AAMR standards to determine eligibility, which the appellant does not meet. The hearing officer did not elaborate further on the reasons why appellant does not meet these criteria.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Rosenberg decision 2-19-08 WO_0.pdf (1.99 MB) | 1.99 MB |