DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Silver 2010-28

Date:

01/01/10

Author:

Silver

DDS eligibility decision summary – Silver 2010-28

Outcome: Ineligible

Keyword: adaptive functioning; FSIQ

Hearing Officer: Elizabeth A. Silver

Counsel present for Appellant: Yes (name redacted)

Counsel present for DDS: Yes, Maria Blanciforte, Esq.

Appellant present: Yes

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
1997	WISC-III	8			Border-line
2000	WISC-III	11	Low-average	Border-line	Border-line	Verbal scores in the 12th percentile, Performance scores in the 6th percentile. Appellant’s delays are significant and presented a “skills profile not similar to children in a language based learning disabilities class.”
2006	WISC-IV	16			74	VCI- 79; PRI- 79; WMI- 88; PSI- 73. Overall score within the borderline range and at the 4th percentile.
2007	WAIS-III	18	86	90	87	VCI- 89; WMI- 84; PSI- 81; POI- 95
Unk.	WIAT-II				91	Lower end of average range with a total score of 91 (27th percentile).
2009	WAIS-III	20	85	95	89	VCI- 84; WMI- 92; PSI- 81; POI- 103. Evaluators believed that the Appellant’s Full Scale IQ score might not have been a reliable measure of his overall intellectual functioning, and that given his deficits and weaknesses, the Full Scale score might have been an overestimate of his daily functioning.
2009	WAIS-III	20	85	100	91	HO notes that the 15-point difference between the Verbal and Perf. Scores were statistically significant.

FUNCTIONAL ABILITY

Year	TESTS	Age	Score	Diagnosis regarding MR in report, if any (or info on disability affecting result of testing)
2009	Vineland	20	61	Communication score: 62 (low), Daily Living Skills: 57 (low), Socialization score: 68 (low). Significant deficits in Appellant’s skills. Composite score of 61 is in the Low Range, with a percentile rank of 1. Evaluator noted that this score represented serious and significant impairments in daily functioning.

Issue is whether the Appellant meets the Department’s definition of mental retardation (significantly sub-average intellectual functioning (FSIQ of 70 or below) existing concurrently and related to significant limitations in adaptive functioning).

Doctor for the Appellant argued that despite the Appellant’s IQ, his activities of daily living and ability to function needed to be taken into account, stressing that the behavioral tests showed the Appellant functioning between a 5 and a 9 year old level, at age 21. Others who testified on behalf of the Appellant expressed concern that without services, the Appellant is at high risk of homelessness because he can’t support himself financially, emotionally or practically. Further, Appellant’s attorney argued that the Appellant’s functional limitations inhibit his ability to use what intellectual knowledge he has, so effectively that he does no have the cognitive abilities that are suggested by his IQ test scores.

The Department conceded that the Appellant met the adaptive functioning prong of the eligibility criteria. Department argued that the Appellant’s IQ was above the range for eligibility services, particularly through testimony of Dr. Parry (DDS Psychologist). Dr. Parry said all of the Appellant’s intelligence evaluations indicated intellectual abilities that were considerably higher than what was required by Department criteria.

Finding in favor of DDS, the hearing officer found that the Appellant has not proven that he has significant sub-average intellectual functioning, and is therefore not eligible for Department services. HO ultimately determined that the Appellant’s IQ test scores consistently achieving a full-scale score exceeding the Department’s criteria for eligibility are the backbone of his decision to deny services to Appellant.

Attachment	Size
2010 - 28 Silver.pdf (1.17 MB)	1.17 MB