DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Adamo 2010-15
Outcome: Ineligible
Keyword: mental health; ADHD
Hearing Officer: Jeanne Adamo
Counsel present for Appellant: No; Appellant’s social worker Sean Dugan was present
Counsel present for DDS: Yes, Barbara Green Whitbeck, Esq.
Appellant present: Yes
Hearing Officer Decision: 2010
Commissioner letter: 2010
IQ
|
Year |
Test |
Age |
Score |
Diagnosis regarding MR in report (or info on disability affecting result of testing) |
||
|
Verb. |
Perf. |
Full |
||||
|
2002 |
WISC-III |
11 |
|
|
73 |
Appellant’s ability to pay attention deteriorated, possibly contributing to poor performance. |
|
2008 |
WAIS-III |
17 |
|
|
72 |
Full score originally given as 72, but evidence was presented that it had been improperly calculated and should have been correctly given as 72. |
|
2009 |
WAIS-III |
18 |
64 |
83 |
70 |
Results must be interpreted with caution because verbal is notably less than performance; full score considered a valid indicator of cognition when discrepancy between verbal and performance is statically significant. |
FUNCTIONAL ABILITY
|
Year |
TESTS |
Age |
Score |
Diagnosis regarding MR in report, if any (or info on disability affecting result of testing) |
|
2002 |
WJIII |
11 |
none |
The school psychologist reported that although Appellant was identified as Mentally Retarded, his test results do not support that identification. |
|
2002 |
DAS |
11 |
65 |
|
|
2002 |
ABAS |
11 |
43 & 78 |
|
|
2009 |
VABS |
18 |
|
Assessment resulted in a standard that corresponds to an adaptive level of Low compared to the population as a whole, and Moderate compared to all persons with Mental Retardation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appellant’s social worker stated that the Appellant, age 19, was not currently under guardianship, but that a guardianship was being pursued, and that the social worker was being proactive in attempting to secure services that would be in place when Appellant aged out of his current program. No evidence was presented on behalf of the Appellant. At the close of the hearing the Appellant was granted three weeks’ additional time to submit further evidence, and DDS was given time to review and respond. When no additional evidence was submitted the record was closed. The Hearing Officer determined that the Appellant does not meet the Department’s definition of Mental Retardation.
The testifying psychologist opined that Appellant is not mentally retarded, but someone whose mental health issues and problems associated with ADHD have impacted his performance on cognitive testing. The Hearing Officer also noted that Mental Retardation typically presents as a global cognitive deficit, and not with significant variance in test results as displayed by the Appellant’s testing. The one IQ test that did result in a score of 70 was calculated using significantly varied verbal and performance scores; therefore, the full score was not considered to be a valid indicator of overall intelligence. Significant weight was placed on the 2002 WISC-III as demonstrating that despite Appellant’s cognitive ability being impacted by attention difficulties he was still able to score above the level required for a finding of Mental Retardation. Since adaptive functioning deficits can be caused by conditions other than Mental Retardation, regulations do not allow eligibility to be determined on adaptive functioning alone. As there was evidence of mental disabilities that could impede Appellant’s ability to function, the results of his adaptive functioning tests were not considered by the hearing officer.
The Appellant failed to demonstrate an overall cognitive ability in the range of a valid FISQ score of 70 or below and was consequently determined ineligible.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 2010 - 15 Adamo.pdf (825.85 KB) | 825.85 KB |