DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Silver 2010-37

DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Elizabeth Silver 2010-37

Outcome: Ineligible

Keyword: adaptive skill functioning, adaptive skills tests

Hearing Officer: Elizabeth Silver

Counsel present for Appellant: N/A

Counsel present for DDS: Cynthia Gagne

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)
			Vb.	Perf.	Full
1998	WISC-III	7	64	72	65
			64	79	69	VCI: 64, POI: 80, FfD: 69, PSI: 88
2005	WISC-IV	14	67		63	PRI: 59, WMI: 74, PSI: 85
2008	WAIS-IV	18			68	VCI 72, PRI 72, WMI 66, and PSI 84

 

 

 

FUNCTIONAL ABILITY

 

Year	TESTS	Age	Score	Diagnosis regarding MR in report, if any (or info on disability affecting result of testing)
	BASC			Lower than average problems in all areas, but teacher and staff reports state highly significant behaviors in all areas and low adaptive skills such as social skills, leadership, and study skills.
	ABS			Very poor to average
2005	Vineland	14		Communication 53, Daily Living Skills 84, Socialization 85, and an Adaptive Behavior Composite Score of 68.
2008	Vineland	17		81, Daily Living Skills 95, Socialization 93, Motor Skills (Est) 121,  Adaptive Behavior Composite score of 86. General adaptive functioning as adequate but there was an unusually large amount of variation in the domain scores. Communication score of 81 was moderately low, which indicated that the Appellant's communication skills were a weakness. The Socialization domain score of 93 was adequate for the Appellant's age group, and the Appellant's Daily Living Skills score of 95 represented an adequate level of adaptive functioning, but the Appellant's personal skills represented a weakness compared to her other Daily Living skills.
2008	Vineland	18		Communication 67, Daily Living Skills 85, Socialization 80, Adaptive Behavior Composite score of 74.
	(ABAS-II)	18		Program manager: Conceptual 72, Social 66, Practical 61, and GAC 60.
	(ABAS-II)	18		Teacher: Conceptual 102, Social 103, Practical 97, and GAC 100.
	(ABAS-II)	18		Caregiver: Conceptual 72, Social 78, Practical 74, and GAC 66.

 

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).

 

 The Department conceded that the Appellant met the criteria for domicile and cognitive functioning.  The sole remaining issue was whether the Appellant also met the Department’s adaptive functioning criteria. 

 

The 19-year-old Appellant did not have a guardian, but Jeff Quigley, a DCF social worker, agreed to be spokesperson on behalf of the Appellant.  Mr. Quigley testified that the Appellant had been in state care for protective reasons since the age of three or four, and that eventually she was placed in specialized foster care. 

 

Mr. Quigley testified about the Appellant’s adaptive functioning.  Mr. Quigley testified that Appellant is unable to manage money, cook, take her medication, work, or shop without prompting or supervision.  DCF was unable to refer Appellant to independent living because she needs extra support.  A caseworker also testified similarly.  The Appellant also testified.  She demonstrated her limited skills with math and money management and she described her limited ability to cook, which included use of the microwave but not the stove.  Finally, the Appellant testified that she would like to live independently but that she needs a person available to help at all times.

 

Dr. Costigan, testifying for DDS, reviewed the Appellant’s various assessments and explained some wide discrepancies in scores.  He gave more weight to the Vineland assessments than to the ABASs, which he found to be radically different from his observations and what he had read in previous reports.  Dr. Costigan testified that he believed that the Appellant could not function independently and that her intellectual disability met the Department’s criteria.  However, he thought her adaptive skills – particularly her psychomotor, planning, and sequence skills – were higher and thus outside the criteria for DDS services. 

 

The Hearing Officer concluded that the Appellant had not become more independent over time and that she required a supervised and structured environment.  The Hearing Officer noted that the Appellant’s adaptive assessment scores were very discrepant, with composite scores ranging from a low of 60 to a high of 100.  In considering the Appellant’s scores within domains rather than her composite scores, the Hearing Officer found the scores to be less divergent.  When so considered, the Appellant’s Daily Living Skills/Practical domain and Social/Stabilization domain scores did not meet the Department’s eligibility criteria.  The Hearing Officer specifically found that while the Appellant possesses a number of adaptive skills, which were learned through constant and repetitive training, those skills do not constitute adaptive skills in the sense of the Department’s regulations. 

 

However, the Hearing Officer found that if someone is able to do things independently, even if only within the confines of a structured program, those abilities may place the individual beyond the Department’s eligibility threshold for adaptive functioning.  Further, the Appellant’s skills in Daily Living and Socialization placed her above the Department’s adaptive functioning eligibility criteria, notwithstanding the fact that these skills required prompting and supervision.  Therefore, the Hearing Officer determined that the Appellant was unable to show significant limitations in adaptive functioning and that she was ineligible for DDS services.