DMR Eligibility Decision by H.O. Rosenberg 12 23 05

Appeal denied by Commissioner on January 3, 2006

Keyword: intellectual function, behavior and psychiatric problems

Hearing Officer: Deirdre Rosenberg

Counsel present for Appellant: Elaine Cockroft, Esq.

Counsel present for DMR: Douglas White

Appellant present: No

Hearing Officer Decision on December 23, 2005

The appellant had been receiving educational services. He would no longer be eligible for services when he became 22.

The hearing officer did not give much weight to the evaluation done in 2004, since the appellant was beyond age 18 at the time of the test.  The part of an evaluation entitled Emotional Testing stated that the declining verbal IQ scores could be attributed to school-based learning. However, it also stated that the appellant's behavioral and psychiatric symptoms most likely undermine the ability to learn and perform at his optimal level.

The hearing officer found that the appellant did not have significantly sub average intellectual function.  In 1996 and 1998, the full scale IQ scores were in the low average range.  The clinician who administered the 1996 test suggested that some subtest results measured near normal, which would not be usual for individuals with mental retardation.  The hearing officer attributed the decline in the IQ scores to the appellant's serious behavioral and psychological problems rather than to any deterioration in his cognitive abilities. Therefore, the hearing officer concluded that the appellant was not "mentally retarded" as that term is used in the DMR regulation for the determination of eligibility for its support.