DMR Eligibility Decison by H.O. Rosenberg 1 30 08

Date:

01/30/08

Author:

Rosenberg

Outcome: ineligible
Keyword: scatter among subtests, underestimation, IQ

Hearing Officer: Deirdre Rosenberg
Counsel present for Appellant: no
Counsel present for DMR: Patricia Oney
Appellant present: yes
Hearing Officer decision: Jan. 30, 2008
Appeal denied by Commissioner: Feb. 29, 2008

The issue presented in this case is whether Appellant meets the eligibility for DMR services by reason of mental retardation (115 CMR 6.03(1).

Appellant is a 20 year old man with spina bifida, lumbar myelodysplasia, shunted hydrocephalus and congenital heart disease. As a result of his diseases he is in a motorized wheelchair. He lives with his parents, and he is enrolled full time in a special education classroom in Massachusetts Hospital School, which he has attended since the third grade.

Year	Test	Age	Score			Diagnosis in report
Year	Test	Age	Verb.	Perf.	Full	Diagnosis in report
1992	K-ABC	5				Performed in the "well below average" range. No numerical score was given; scores on achievement tests were in the average range. He was more focused in the afternoons. - took a Stanford-binet test in the past and scored in the average range
1995	WISC-III	8	Top of the low -average range	Intellectually deficient range		About 20 point difference between verbal and performance scores. Might have a nonverbal learning disability. Full scale IQ score probably underestimates his true intellectual potential.
1998	WISC-III	11				Again no numerical scores. Overall intellectual functioning in the borderline range, ranging from low-average to significantly below average. Said he was an "animated, engaging, verbal, friendly youngster," who cooperated.
2001	WISC-III	14	79	62	68	"Verbal subtest scores varied widely, with improved scores since last assessment indicating at least three years' progress made within the last three years."
2005	WAIS-III		87	70	77	Scores should not be used solely in assessing his true level of intelligence, because some of his struggles with certain WAIS-III tasks could be a result of his spina bifida.
2007	WAIS-III		81	75	76	Strengths continue to be in the verbal realm. Verbal scores are within the average range. Due to heightened variability in his performance as well as substantial discrepancy between index scores, his full scale IQ is not a valid representation of his overall skills. Thought he was NOT mentally retarded.

Psychologist for appellant testified that his full scale IQ score of 76 was not reliable because of the wide scatter among the verbal subtests. She also emphasized that in 2001 his full IQ score of 68 was below the 70 to 75 range that was required for eligibility. She made note that the vocabulary and information subtests were correlated with academic background and did not necessarily speak to Appellant's innate cognitive abilities. Appellant's case manager testified that patients with spina bifida typically have high verbal IQ scores, but it does not translate to certain adaptive skills. The DMR psychologist concluded that Appellant was ineligible for DMR support because "his intellectual functioning is above the regulatory range."

The Hearing officer concluded that Appellant could not be considered mentally retarded under AAMR standards, because his IQ was too high. There was the one test in 2001 where his scores were low enough to put him in the range of mental retardation however he did receive scores in the average range on certain subtests within that test which required higher level thinking skills. All of the information presented seemed to suggest to the hearing officer that the Appellant's scores underestimated his intellectual abilities. Therefore the hearing officer found the Appellant to be ineligible for DMR services.

Attachment	Size
Rosenberg decision 1-30-08 WO_0.pdf (2.45 MB)	2.45 MB