DMR Eligibility Decision by H.O. Hudgins 1 5 04

Keyword: subtest score discrepancy, adaptive skills

Hearing Officer: Marcia A. Hudgins

Counsel present for Appellant: No

Counsel present for DMR: Kim LaDue

Appellant present: Yes

Hearing Officer Decision on January 5, 2004

[Some pages are missing.]

One DMR expert testified that although the appellant had significant limitations in three adaptive skill areas: community use, functional academics, and self-direction. DMR did not consider self-direction, social skills or leisure in determining eligibility. She also testified that her own assessment was consistent with the appellant's previous assessments that she had reviewed.

Another expert witness for DMR reviewed the result of an IQ test done when the appellant was 16 years old.  He pointed out the 14-point discrepancy between the verbal and performance scores and the large variation in the subtest scores. He also testified that on the test he administered, the discrepancy was greater than 20 points.  He stated that the difference in the scores could be due to a learning disability, depression, or medication effects.

The hearing officer found that the appellant was not mentally retarded.  She pointed out that the large discrepancy between the verbal and performance IQ scores is not consistent with a diagnosis of mental retardation and noted that the cognitive deficits were likely due to other factors. She also stated that even if the appellant met the AAMR definition of mental retardation, she would be found ineligible due to the fact that she was in need of specialized supports in only two of the seven adaptive skill areas considered by DMR