DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Adamo 2010-26

Outcome: Ineligible

Keyword: IQ; domicile

Hearing Officer: Jeanne Adamo

Counsel present for Appellant: No

Counsel present for DDS: Barbara Green Whitbeck, Esq.

Appellant present: No

Hearing Officer decision: 2010

Commissioner letter: 2010

IQ

FUNCTIONAL ABILITY

Issue is whether Appellant is eligible for DDS services by reason of Mental Retardation as defined in 115 CMR 6.04(1) and 115 CMR 2.01 (a person with significantly sub-average intellectual functioning existing concurrently and related to significant limitations in adaptive functioning). The Appellant’s domicile was also raised in issue.

DDS concedes that the Appellant has significant limitations in adaptive functioning (Vineland test scores indicate a composite score within the regulatory criteria for DDS eligibility). Remaining issues are whether the Appellant met the level of cognitive deficit required by statute.

Appellant was 23 years old at time of hearing. Record reflects a long history of distorting or misinterpreting the actions of others, particularly a history of reporting sexual abuse and sexual harassment that is not substantiated by facts. Prior to testing conducted in 2000, Appellant was reportedly placed in a chemical-induced coma for six weeks.

Hearing officer found that the Appellant did not meet the definition of mental retardation established by the Department, and therefore is not mentally retarded as supported within the statute. The HO based her conclusions on evidence that a finding of Mental Retardation has not ever been diagnosed for the appellant, and that cognitive testing from age 13 indicates that Appellant consistently scores well above 70, failing to indicate presence of Mental Retardation. Through her authorized representative, her father, Appellant argued that the progress Appellant is making with out of state services is significantly less expensive than that of similar services within Massachusetts. Without DDS services to supplement the cost, Appellant’s parents fear she will not continue to progress here in the Commonwealth as they can not continue to pay for this care indefinitely. In spite of these concerns, HO ultimately gave significant weight to Dr. Shook’s (DDS psychologist) determination that the Appellant’s cognitive limitations are not at the level that is necessary for a diagnosis of Mental Retardation as defined by DDS. Dr. Shook acknowledged that the Appellant does have deficits but stated that in her clinical opinion the Appellant does not meet the criteria for service eligibility from the Department.

In addition to the finding of no mental retardation for purposes of the statute, the Hearing Officer also noted that Appellant’s domicile is questionable because she is currently living outside of the Commonwealth and has been for five months. Domicile within the Commonwealth is a threshold requirement for DDS eligibility. HO ruled that further inquiry into Appellant’s intentions would be required to determine this threshold requirement of domicile.