DMR Eligibility Decision by H.O. Adamo 3 10 08

Date:

03/10/08

Author:

Adamo

Outcome: ineligible
Keyword: IQ, discrepancy between verbal and performance IQ

Hearing Officer: Jeanne Adamo

Counsel present for DMR: John C. Geenty, Jr.
Appellant present: No
Hearing Officer decision 3/10/08
Appeal confirmed by Commissioner: 3/18/08

The appellant is a 21-year old female who resides with her mother. She has been diagnosed with moderate left hemi paresis, seizure disorder, non-verbal learning disorder, homonymous hemaniopsia, cerebral palsy, Arnold Chiari malformation, and hydrocephalus.

Year	Test	Age	Score			Diagnosis in report
Year	Test	Age	Verb.	Perf.	Full	Diagnosis in report
2001	WISC-III	14	80	60	68	None noted by evaluator. The DMR psychologist stated that the appellant's low score could have been due to cerebral palsy complications. A variability between Verbal and Performance indicates a great variability in appellant's abilities. The evaluator stipulated that a Full Scale IQ score of 68 does meet the requirement for mental retardation.
2004	WAIS-III	17	82	73	76	None noted by evaluator. The DMR psychologist stated that the appellant did less well in some areas and improved in other areas, and the point difference between scores was reduced. The evaluator could not hypothesize as to why this would be the case other than to say that the appellant's abilities may vary from one day to the next.
2006	ABAS-II	19			54	None noted by evaluator. The DMR psychologist stated that if the appellant met the IQ requirement for the definition of mental retardation, these scores would fall into the range that is necessary in order to be diagnosed with mental retardation.
2008	Stanford-Binet	21	80	83 (Nonverbal)	80	None noted by evaluator. The DMR psychologist stated that these test results did not change his opinion about the appellant's ineligibility for DMR services.

The hearing officer noted that, in 2001, the appellant scored an 80 on the Verbal IQ test, which does not fall within the range required for a determination of mental retardation. Moreover, the discrepancy between Verbal and Performance scores needed further assessment. In 2004, the appellant showed less discrepancy between Verbal and Performance IQ scores, but her Full Scale IQ score of 76 fell above the upper range of 75 referenced in AAMR standards. The appellant's most recent assessment in 2008 resulted in Verbal, Performance and Full IQ scores that fell out of the range referenced in AAMR standards. Because of this, the hearing officer found that the appellant does not meet the requirement of significantly sub-average intellectual functioning.

Attachment	Size
Adamo decision 3-10-08 WO.pdf (4.49 MB)	4.49 MB