DMR Eligibility Decison by H.O. Hudgins 10 19 06

Date:

10/19/06

Author:

Hudgins

Outcome: Ineligible

Keyword: autism, IQ, trauma, depressed scores

Hearing Officer: Marcia A. Hudgins

Counsel present for Appellant: Tim Sindelar

Counsel present for DMR: Patrick Murphy

Appellant present: Yes

Hearing Officer decision on October 19, 2006

Appeal denied by Commissioner on October 30, 2006

Appellant is a 20 year old female. She has had many operations on her knees, had a seizure disorder, and continues to have an auditory processing disorder, a vestibular disorder, and a bowel disorder. Appellant has also been diagnosed with autism.

The summary of the evidence is in the following table:

Year	Test (for ex., WISC-III, WAIS-III, ABAS-II)	Age	Score			Diagnosis in report
Year	Test (for ex., WISC-III, WAIS-III, ABAS-II)	Age	Verb.	Perf.	Full	Diagnosis in report
1992	WPPSI-R	6	78	74	74	Clinician noted that appellant exhibited intellectual functioning in the borderline range.
1996	WISC-III	10	76	75/78	74/75	Clinician noted that consistent with previous tests, appellant showed intellectual functioning in the borderline range.
1997	WISC-III	11	74	78	74	Clinician found that appellant was in the middle of the borderline range of intellectual functioning. He diagnosed her with a learning disability and ADHD. He also noted the presence of primary characteristic of a speech and language disorder, Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety, and significant underlying social skills deficit.
2000	WISC-III	15	73	71	70	Clinician noted that appellant's overall performance was in the borderline range.
2000	WAIT	15	-	-	74	Clinician noted that appellant's academic achievement was comparable to that of a 5th grader. Clinician also noted that appellant may be showing early symptoms of schizophrenia.
2003	WAIS-III	18	77	80	77	Clinician diagnosed appellant with autistic disorder and borderline intellectual function. She noted that appellant's capabilities were consistent with that of a mentally retarded young adult, but did not officially offer a diagnosis of mental retardation.
2003	WRAT-III	18	-	-	-	Appellant scored at the high school level in reading, at an 8th grade level in spelling, and at the 3rd grade level in Arithmetic.

In 1992, along with the WPPSI-R, the clinician administered the Columbia Mental Maturity Scale-Third Edition, the WRAT-R, and the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts-Revised. On all three tests, appellant's performance was commensurate with her performance on the WPPSI-R. She showed a pattern of strong verbal attainment with less strong reasoning skills.

In 1996, the clinician also administered the WRAT-III. The clinician concluded that appellant has significant intellectual and social difficulties and functions in the borderline range.

In 1992 and twice in 2000, appellant's mother completed the Vineland Behavior Scales. The results were all consistent and the clinicians concluded that appellant's adaptive functioning was significantly delayed and impaired. In 2003, appellant's mother completed the BRIEF questionnaire. Based on the answers to the BRIEF questionnaire, the clinician concluded that the appellant was unable to care for herself.

Appellant's mother testified at the hearing that appellant has significant sub-average intellectual ability and can not care for herself. Appellant has no safety skills, can not dress herself and has no concept of time.

DMR's expert testified that appellant's deficits are the result of autism and not mental retardation. He stated that according to the DSM-IV, mental retardation is measured as an IQ of 70 or below. He concluded that appellant was on the borderline range, but that she did not meet the definition of mental retardation. He also notes that none of the clinicians who had examined appellant had diagnosed her as mentally retarded.

The hearing officer concluded that although appellant has a need for continuing support, she does not meet the definition of mentally retarded. Appellant's IQ scores well in the range of 70-77. The hearing officer determined that only the score of 70 might have indicated a diagnosis of mental retardation. However, she also explained that the score of 70 occurred shortly after appellant was the victim of a traumatic event, making it likely that the trauma had depressed her score.

The hearing officer further noted that a clinical determination of mental retardation does not only rely on IQ scores. The hearing officer stated that IQ scores between 70 and 75 are not enough since none of the clinicians diagnosed her with mental retardation.

Attachment	Size
Hudgins decision 10-19-06 WO_0.pdf (3.26 MB)	3.26 MB