DMR Eligibility Decison by H.O. Rosenberg 5 20 07
Outcome: Ineligible
Keyword: IQ
Hearing Officer: Deirdre Rosenberg
Counsel present for Appellant: No
Counsel present for DMR: John C. Geenty, Jr.
Appellant present: Yes
Hearing Officer decision on May 20, 2007
Appeal denied by Commissioner on June 6, 2007
Appellant is a 21 year old man who lives in an off campus group home at the Kelbourne School, which focuses on the development of daily living skills. He is currently diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder NOS and Dysthymic Disorder. His vocal cords have been paralyzed since birth, making very difficult for others to understand his speech.
The summary of the evidence is in the following table:
|
Year |
Test (for ex., WISC-III, WAIS-III, ABAS-II) |
Age |
Score |
Diagnosis in report |
||
|
Verb. |
Perf. |
Full |
||||
|
1998 |
WISC-III |
12 |
85 |
64 |
- |
The clinician did not compute a full-scale IQ score because of the huge discrepancy between the verbal and performance scores. The clinician notes that appellant's unique set of thinking and reasoning make his overall intellectual functioning difficult to summarize. |
|
2002 |
WISC-III |
16 |
71 |
52 |
58 |
The clinician believes the results were a valid measure of appellant's functioning at the time and noted that appellant had very slow processing speed and demonstrated difficulty in managing his rocking and spitting behaviors. |
|
2006 |
WAIS-III |
20 |
77 |
70 |
72 |
Clinician described appellant as being in the borderline category. |
In 1998, appellant was also tested using the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery, Revised. This test only measures verbal skills, which is where appellant's strengths lie. The clinician reports that the test scores place appellant in the low average range of intellectual ability.
In 2000, appellant was tested using the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, 4th Ed. He scored 84 in verbal reasoning, 90 in abstract/visual reasoning, and 94 in short term memory. The test composite score was 74. The clinician reported that appellant's score was within the middle of the low average range, consistent with his score on the Stanford-Binet.
The hearing officer found that appellant did not meet the definition of "mental retardation" due to his IQ scores. She agreed with the DMR expert witness that appellant's lower IQ scores were the result of his PDD and not mental retardation.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Rosenberg decision 5-20-07 WO_0.pdf (917.02 KB) | 917.02 KB |