You are here

DMR Eligibility Decision by H.O. Hudgins 11/9/2005

Date: 
11/09/2005
Author: 
Marcia Hudgins
lock_open

DMR Eligibility Decision by H.O. Hudgins 11/9/2005

Outcome: eligible

Keyword: testing prior to age 18; one on one testing conditions

Hearing Officer: Hudgins          

Counsel present for Appellant: N/A

Counsel present for DMR: David E. Fleischman, Douglas J. White

Appellant present: Yes

Hearing Officer decision: 11/9/2005

Commissioner letter: 1/4/2006

 

 

 

Year

Test

Age

Score

Diagnosis in report

Verb.

Perf.

Full

1988

Stanford-Binet

4y 4m

No test scores reported

 

 

Appellant was delayed about 1 year in fine motor and receptive language skills and slightly more delayed in expressive language and social development motor skills and single word vocabulary were closer to age level.

1991

WISC-R

6y 6m

No test scores reported

 

 

Could not be computed because appellant would not participate. The comprehensive subtest showed a genuine limited understanding of language, and internalization of social norms and conventions.

1992

WISC-III

8y 3m

 

 

60

Mildly retarded range

1996

WISC-III

12 y

75

58

64

Pervasive developmental disorder with autistic features. IQ was in borderline range or below.

1997

WISC-III

13y 5m

74

76

69

Mildly retarded range

2004

WAIS-III

19

79

78

77

 

2005

WAIS-III

21

81

72

75

Administered under optimal conditions. Would have not preformed as well under less structured setting, found to be cognitively impaired and had extremely limited adaptive skills appearing to meet the criteria for mental retardation.

 

The Hearing Officer found that because the majority of appellant’s valid test scores for tests given prior to his 18 birthday were below 75 he had manifested the criteria for mental retardation. The Hearing Officer concluded that the higher test scores which he received at one point were due to the optimal conditions of one on one testing under which he was tested thus should be discounted as such. Since there was no dispute as to the appellants sufficient adaptive deficits required to make a finding of mental retardation and the appellants need of specialized support in three areas thus the appellant was found eligible for DMR services. 

 

To save files, right click and choose 'Save Target As' or 'Save Link As'