DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Hudgins 2010-3

DDS Eligibility Decision by Marcia A. Hudgins, 2010-3

Appeal DENIED

Keyword: psychiatric factors affecting testing, lack of focus and concentration affecting testing; variable full scale IQ scores

Hearing Officer: Marcia A. Hudgins

Counsel present for Appellant:

Counsel present for DDS: Barbara Green Whitbeck

Appellant present: NO

Hearing Officer decision: 2010

Commissioner letter: 2010

 

Issue presented : Whether the Appellant meets the Department’s definition of mental retardation and is thus eligible for DDS services.

 

 

IQ

 

Year	Test	Age	Score			Diagnosis regarding MR in report (or info on disability affecting result of testing)
			Verb.	Perf.	Full
2001	WISC-III	13	74	80	75	“borderline classification of intelligence”
2008	WAIS-III	20	71	69	67	“extremely low range and consistent with a diagnosis of mental retardation” Working memory skills appear to be “seriously compromised” possibly due to brain injury
2010	WAIS-IV	21			67	Intellectual abilities in the “extremely low range”

 

FUNCTIONAL ABILITY

 

Year	TESTS	Age	Score	Diagnosis regarding MR in report, if any (or info on disability affecting result of testing)
Between 2004 -2005	“psychological test”	16	Verbal comprehension – 65 Perceptual reasoning – 69 Working Memory Score – 62 Processing Speed -68	Intellectual ability appears to be in borderline range with intellectual potential at the borderline to low average range.

 

 

 

 

In 2001 when the Appellant was 13 he was examined by a Clinical Neuropsychologist who noted that the Appellant had a history of physical abuse, multiple foster home placements and disruptions of placements.  Appellant was born with a positive toxic screen for cocaine. 

 

During a hospitalization in 2001 Appellant was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder II, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and ADHD.  Also there was a mention of Reactive Attachment Disorder. 

 

Appellant’s sister testified that in the past Appellant has exhibited serious violence and that he had a lobotomy at the age of eight years old.

 

The HO found that that there is no dispute that the Appellant meets the first criterion, and is a domicile of the Commonwealth.

 

Although there were four IQ tests submitted in the record, the HO only considered three of them.  The HO gave the most weight to the test that was administered prior to the Appellant turning 18.In that test report the Appellant’s Full Scale IQ was 75 placing him in the borderline range for cognitive abilities.

 

The other two tests considered were administered to the Appellant when he was almost 20 years of age and when he was 21 years of age. Both of those tests produced Full Scale IQ scores of 67. These scores are within the extremely low range. However on the earlier of those tests, the Appellant's Verbal Comprehension Index was 80 placing him in the low average range and calls into question the reason for his low Full Scale IQ score on that test.

 

DDS's "expert witness testified that a number of psychiatric factors could have influenced the Appellant's performance and noted that the report indicated a lack of focus and concentration on the part of the Appellant when taking the IQ test. The final test report also indicated that the Appellant had problems of inattention and poor concentration which DDS's expert witness testified makes it difficult to determine the Appellant's actual level of cognitive functioning.

 

The Hearing Officer (HO) found that although the Appellant “has suffered a series of traumas and difficulties throughout his life” and “has both psychiatric and cognitive issues” the weight of the evidence did not support a “finding of sub-average intellectual functioning” as needed to meet the DDS criteria for eligibility for adult services.