DMR Eligibility Decsion by H.O. Hudgins 12 2 05
Keyword: intellectual function, score discrepancy, score increase, functional impairment due to other causes
Hearing Officer: Marcia A. Hudgins
Counsel present for Appellant: Tim Sindelar
Counsel present for DMR: Douglas White, David B. Fleishman
Appellant present: Yes
Hearing Officer Decision on December 2, 2005
|
Year |
Test |
Age |
Score |
Diagnosis in report |
||
|
Verb. |
Perf. |
Full |
||||
|
1993 |
WISC-III |
8 |
70 |
66-69 |
65-67 |
The report stated that although the scores might not represent the appellant's optimal potential, they reflected the level on which he was functioning. |
|
1995 |
WISC-III |
9 |
56 |
70 |
60 |
The examiner noted that the appellant appeared to be distracted by external or by internal stimuli, and the test results indicated that the appellant was functioning in the borderline to mentally deficient range. She also opined that the appellant had PDD NOS. |
|
2002 |
WAIS-III |
17 |
74 |
87 |
78 |
The report stated that the appellant's overall scores were in the borderline to low average range relative to other children at his age. |
|
2003 |
WAIS-III |
18 |
81 |
85 |
81 |
The examiner stated that the appellant demonstrated significant delays in all area of performance, and that despite his low intelligence, he was functionally mentally retarded. She also stated that the appellant adaptive skills scores were equivalent to those from the three to eight years old. The examiner gave a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder and recommended DMR service. |
As to the 1993 evaluation, the DMR expert did not make a diagnosis of mental retardation based on the examiner's findings because of the other factors that might affect the low scores. She stated that the full scale score in the 1995 testing would not be a good representation of the appellant's IQ due to the large discrepancy between the verbal and performance scores. She also noted that mental retardation is not one of diagnoses that came under PDD NOS.
The expert testified relative to the 2002 evaluation that the appellant received scores in the average range on a number of subtests. She also testified that she reviewed the 2003 test results as part of her determination of eligibility because she stated DMR allowed for consideration of such evaluations even though the appellant was over the age of 18. She went on to say that the full scale IQ score of 81 was reliable because of the 4-point difference and that there was no DMR definition for functional retardation. In addition, she noted that she would be reluctant to make a diagnosis of mental retardation for someone with low scores caused by other factors that might improve with treatment over time. She also pointed out that she had never seen anyone with mental retardation whose scores increased by 20 points. She stated that scores likely decreased over time because the adult tests were more difficult.
The hearing officer found that the appellant was not mentally retarded as because the appellant did not have significant sub-average intelligence. The hearing officer found that the test scores were most likely caused by other factors, not solely by low cognitive ability. She also stated that the most recent scores suggested that the appellant's situation had improved as a result of medication, counseling, and small group instruction. She noted that although there was evidence of functional deficits, it did not appear from the evidence that those functional deficits were the result of sub-average intellectual functioning
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Hudgins decision 12-2-05 JG_0.pdf (7.06 MB) | 7.06 MB |