DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Hudgins 2010-17

DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Hudgins, 2010-17

Outcome: ineligible

Keyword: Lack of test report, learning disability, mental illness

Hearing Officer: Hudgins

Counsel present for Appellant: Bob Cheney

Counsel present for DDS: James Bergeron

Appellant present: Yes

Hearing Officer decision: 2010

Commissioner letter: 2010

IQ

FUNCTIONAL ABILITY

Issue is whether Appellant is mentally retarded as defined in 115 CMR 2.01 (a person with significantly sub-average intellectual functioning existing concurrently and related to significant limitations in adaptive functioning).

Appellant’s advocate testified that Appellant had difficulty with housekeeping, organization, transportation and managing her finances.  He stated that Appellant had been diagnosed with mental retardation as well as with memory problems.  Throughout Appellant’s education, she had been in special education classes.  Appellant’s therapist testified that DDS is the appropriate agency to provide case management, as Appellant intellectual disability interferes with her problem solving, and is unable to cope with her medical difficulties on her own. 

DDS worker who administered the two ABAS-II tests testified on behalf of DDS that she believed that the Appellant answered the questions to the best of her ability.  DDS worker agreed that Appellant scored low on the second ABAS-II.  DDS Eligibility Psychologist testified that he made the initial determination that Appellant was not eligible for DDS services, as she did not meet the criteria for adaptive functioning deficits required under DDS regulations.  Her overall composite score of 79 on the ABAS-II was not two standard deviations below the means and her scores on 2 of 3 domains were not 1.5 deviations below the mean.  In his opinion, Appellant’s low scores are due to depression and anxiety rather than mental retardation.  Psychologist testified that the discrepancy between Appellant’s test score of 80 on the language part of the CA Test of Mental Maturity and her score of 65 on the non-language section indicate a learning disability rather than mental retardation.  He also stated that mental illness may play a role in the Appellant’s adaptive deficits and likely accounts for the low second ABAS-II score.

The Hearing Officer ruled that she was unable to consider the IQ scores of 71 and 61 as they were not accompanied by test reports.  She agreed that the California Test of Mental Maturity indicates a learning disability rather than mental retardation.  The Hearing Officer noted that the DDS Eligibility Psychologist found that Appellant’s struggles with mental illness interfered with her performance on IQ tests.  The Hearing Officer found that Appellant presented a lack of evidence of significantly sub-average intellectual functioning.  Appellant did not meet the first prong of the DDS definition of mental retardation; the Hearing Officer did not need to consider her adaptive limitations.