DMR Eligibility Decision by H.O. Hudgins 7 18 06

Keyword: intellectual function

Hearing Officer: Marcia A. Hudgins

Counsel present for Appellant: No

Counsel present for DMR: John Geenty

Appellant present: No

Hearing Officer Decision on July 18, 2006

Appeal denied by Commissioner on July 27, 2006

Three evaluations before age 18 were entered into evidence.

The DMR expert found the appellant ineligible for DMR services based on only two evaluations because the final evaluation was not a cognitive assessment but rather was an achievement assessment. The scores of the Woodcock Johnson - III Tests of Cognitive and Achievement did not suggest mental retardation but were consistent with the previous testing.  In addition, he stated that according to the ABAS testing, the appellant received no scores of 4 or below on any adaptive skill.

The hearing officer found that the appellant did not meet the DMR's definition of mental retardation .  The two scores given prior to the age of 18 were above 75.  The hearing officer found that the third test score of 72 was not comparable to the other scores and therefore did not take it into consideration. Although she found obsessive compulsive disorder, she did not find related limitations in the appellant's adaptive functioning because the appellant's IQ scores were higher than required by the AAMR standards.