DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Adamo 2010-38

Date:

01/01/10

Author:

Jeanne Adamo

DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Adamo 2010-38

Outcome: Ineligible

Keyword: score discrepancy; mental health; ADHD

Hearing Officer: Jeanne Adamo

Counsel present for Appellant: No

Counsel present for DDS: Yes, Elizabeth Duffy, Esq.

Appellant present: No; Appellant’s mother present

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)
Year	Test	Age	Verb.	Perf.	Full
1990?	Stanford Binet	3			78	Overall composite score: 78, Borderline Range of Intelligence; Verbal Reasoning: 97; Abstract/Visual Reasoning: 64; Quantitative Reasoning: 88; Short Term Memory: 78. Near normal cognitive development with temperamental disorder since infancy and behavioral difficulties beginning in second year of life through present. Opposite extremes of behavior from manageable to dangerous
1992?	WISC	5	94	69	80
1992?	WPPSI-R	5	94	69	80	“Full Scale IQ may not be reflective of …true learning potential. However, the profile is indicative of the presence of learning disabilities.”
1993?	Stanford Binet	6				“Appellant’s verbal intelligence was reported to fall in the solidly Average range of intelligence whereas his abstract/visual reasoning fell well below average in the Deficient range of intelligence.”
1996?	WISC-III	9				Opinion of the examiner that, “it would be unfair to estimate [Appellant’s] learning potential by his overall performance on the WISC-III…true ability may actually fall in the Low Average to Average range…he is a significantly impaired boy who will continue to require substantial special education support and classroom curriculum modifications.”
1998?	WISC-III	11				Full Scale Score not calculated, “Borderline on Verbal Testing to well below that level for non-verbal Performance items.”
2001	WISC-III	14	81	60	69
2007	WAIS-III	20	73	60	65	Psychiatric disabilities override whatever consideration would be pertinent regarding his developmental impairment
2009	WAIS-III	22			71

FUNCTIONAL ABILITY

Year	TESTS	Age	Score	Diagnosis regarding MR in report, if any (or info on disability affecting result of testing)
1993?	K-ABC	6	75	“Results must be interpreted with caution….[I]mpulsivity, high activity level, and inconsistent cooperation render the findings only a baseline estimate of his intellectual potential…”
2007	ABAS-II	20	44

The hearing office determined that the Appellant did not meet the Department’s definition of Intellectual Disability as defined by 115 CMR 2.01 and therefore did not meet DDS eligibility criteria. The terms “intellectual disability” and “mental retardation” are synonymous under the regulation; both require a significant deficit in adaptive functioning and a significant deficit in cognitive functioning. Adaptive functioning refers to success in performing day to day activities, while cognitive functioning measures cognitive ability and capacity. The Appellant’s diagnosis of ADHD and mental illness were not disputed, and both may potentially compromise the test results required to determine adaptive functioning and cognitive capacity.

Although a person with a mental illness may also receive a diagnosis of mental retardation, a diagnosis of mental retardation must be based on an intelligence test score of 70 or below using approved IQ assessment tests administered in standardized formats by qualified professionals. The hearing officer noted that certain exhibits, including four years’ worth of neurological evaluation reports, reported that the Appellant was a person with mental retardation without referencing how that diagnosis was determined; therefore, no weight was given to these reports. The Appellant’s wide discrepancies in verbal and performance IQs were statistically significant and often prevented a valid calculation of full scale IQ. Appellant was not diagnosed with mental retardation and his evaluators noted his unique cognitive profile and that he may actually fall in the low average to average range. Even where the Appellant’s full scale IQ score fell below 70, the qualified professional administering and interpreting the test determined that the Appellant’s true overall level of cognitive functioning was in the borderline range of intelligence.

The testifying psychologist’s opinion that an individual could not test higher than his cognitive capacity by chance, but may receive a lower score due to difficulties associated with ADHD and mental illness was also given weight. Consequently, although the Appellant demonstrated poor adaptive function, this finding is not sufficient, as limits to adaptive functioning may be caused by mental illness, not mental retardation. Appellant did not demonstrate an overall cognitive ability at or below level of mental retardation, which must be evidenced by a valid FISQ score of 70 or below.

Attachment	Size
2010 - 38 Adamo.pdf (2.48 MB)	2.48 MB