DMR Eligibility Decision by H.O. Rosenberg 2 24 06
Appeal denied by Commissioner on March 29, 2006
Keyword: intellectual function
Hearing Officer: Deirdre Rosenberg
Counsel present for Appellant: No
Counsel present for DMR: John Mitchell
Appellant present: No
Hearing Officer Decision on February 24, 2006
The appellant had been diagnosed with autism, pervasive developmental disorder, motor dyspraxia, oral motor apraxia, ADHD, and oppositional defiant disorder, among other disorders.
The summary of the evidence is in the following table:
|
Year |
Test |
Age |
Score |
Diagnosis in report |
||
|
Verb. |
Perf. |
Full |
||||
|
1991 |
WPPSI-R |
4 |
115 |
82 |
- |
Due to the wide discrepancy between his verbal and nonverbal skills, a full scale IQ was not computed. |
|
1994 |
WISC-III |
7 |
105 |
79 |
- |
The full scale IQ was not computed. |
|
1997 |
WISC-III |
10 |
98 |
78 |
- |
The clinician stated that although his practical knowledge and social judgment were below average range for his age, other areas were within the average range. |
|
2003 |
WISC-III |
16 |
88 |
71 |
77 |
The report stated that the scores were considered to understate the appellant's cognitive abilities. |
|
2005 |
SB-V |
18 |
96 |
90 |
92 |
The report stated that the improvement was a result of his medicinal regime and structured teaching. |
The final evaluation revealed that all of the scores were in the average range (90-109 on the Stanford-Binet) and higher than the recent results. Also, the wide discrepancy between the verbal and non-verbal skills was absent.
The appellant's mother testified that the appellant was incapable of living his daily life. For example, he was not able to use the bathroom on his own. The school director also testified that the appellant would not reach the level of independence needed for unsupervised employment in the near future.
The hearing officer found that the appellant did not meet the DMR's definition of mental retardation. Based on the five intelligence tests, the appellant had received IQ scores in the low average to high average range, except for the one that he took when he was 16. Given no contrary evidence to prove significantly sub-average intellectual function, the hearing officer did not take the appellant's adaptive functioning skills into consideration.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Rosenberg decision 2-24-06 SG_1.pdf (2.9 MB) | 2.9 MB |