DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Adamo 2010-8

DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Adamo – 2010-8

Outcome: ineligible

Keyword: borderline IQ; variable IQ scores

Hearing Officer: Jeanne Adamo

Counsel present for Appellant: no, but ed advocate

Counsel present for DDS: James Bergeron

Appellant present: yes

Hearing Officer decision: 2010

Commissioner letter: 2010

            The appeal was denied because the APPELLANT did not have the requisite IQ to meet the criteria for DDS services. 

            APPELLANT is an 18 year old male with PTSD, ADHD, severe anxiety, and depression.  He has been in special education classes for all of his schooling and has maintained C’s and B’s.  His parents both accompanied him to court. 

APPELLANT argued that he will not be able to take care of himself without DDS services.  APPELLANT’S parents both spoke for him at the hearing, stating that he will not be able to live alone.  They argued that their son cannot manage to function without services. 

The department put on two expert witness, Dr. Fredrick Johnson, to argue that although APPELLANT has a below average IQ he is not mentally retarded as defined by DDS.  They argued that there was variability in the IQ test scores.  Dr. Johnson testified that variability in IQ test scores is not typical of someone with mental retardation and testified that a person cannot score out of the range of mental retardation if he or she does not have the capacity to do so.  Moreover, Dr. Johnson also testified that the level of detail with which the APPELLANT answered questions was not consistent with someone who would meet the criteria for significant sub average intelligence. 

Moreover, Dr. Johnson explained the difference between borderline range of intellectual functioning vs. mild mental retardation.  He claimed that APPELLANT is in the borderline range, yet is above the level necessary for a diagnosis of mental retardation.  He stated that APPELLANT does have deficits and that he could benefit from services, but stated in his clinical opinion that APPELLANT does not meet the criteria for service eligibility for DDS.

             The hearing officer concluded that APPELLANT was not mentally retarded pursuant to the requirements and therefore denied her appeal.