DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Silver 2010-11

Silver 2010-11

Outcome: ineligible

Keyword: adaptive functioning, score discrepancy

Hearing Officer: Elizabeth Silver

Counsel present for Appellant: no

Counsel present for DDS: Patricia Oney

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 is 18 years old. Appellant was held back in 1st and 2nd grade and received special education services throughout his schooling. Appellant has been diagnosed with Tourette’s Syndrome, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, PDD and ADHD.  In regards to adaptive functioning, Appellant mange money, cook, clean and does not often remember to bathe herself. After increased aggressive behavior at home, Appellant was voluntarily signed to residential school. When he was at home, Appellant would often fly off the handle and attack family members. Appellant’s family expressed concern for their safety and that of the Appellant if he comes home after he graduates.  In regards to the Appellant’s cognitive functioning, Yolanda Claudio, social worker for DCF testified that she believed Appellant’s increased testing scores  could be due to exposure and familiarity with testing. She also testified that Appellant will always need assistance for daily activities and help taking his medication.

Dr. Crenshaw from the Department testified that he believed the Appellant was not mentally retarded but instead suffered from a verbal learning disability. Dr. Crenshaw noted that Appellant’s scores were within average limits in his visual spatial processing and borderline in his verbal processing. Over time, there was also some narrowing between the VCI and PRI scores  which suggests that Appellant continued to grow cognitively. Dr. Crenshaw concluded that Appellant did not meet the Department’s cognitive eligibility requirements because he has pronounced intellectual skills.  Dr. Crenshaw also testified  that the Appellant did not meet the Department’s adaptive functioning requirements because his 2009 Vineyard scores were above the DDS threshold.

The Hearing Officer concluded that Appellant did not meet the Department’s definition of mental retardation. In terms of the Appellant’s adaptive functioning, Appellant satisfies the eligibility requirements although his Vineyard scores exceed the Department’s threshold. The Hearing Officer decided that Appellant’s scores must be interpreted in light of the fact that behaviors, unlike intellect, can change from week to week, depending on the structuring of the environment. Appellant’s witnesses testified credibly that Appellant is incapable of living independently. In terms of the Appellant’s cognitive abilities, Appellant does not meet the Department’s criteria.  Although older scores met the eligibility requirements for the Department, Appellant’s most recent test scores however were above the Department’s regulatory threshold.  The Hearing Officer decided that Full Scale IQ was not determinative here because there is such a significant split between Verbal and Performance scores. Although the Appellant’s Verbal scores across the board fell in the extremely low to low end of borderline range, Appellant’s Performance scores generally fell in the low average to average range. A split in scores is generally more characteristic of a verbal learning disability than mental retardation. Appellant has demonstrated at least some cognitive functioning, i.e. average Performance scores, and therefore is outside of range of mental retardation.