DMR Eligibility Decision by H.O. Hudgins 1 27 04

Keyword: intellectual function

Hearing Officer: Marcia A. Hudgins

Counsel present for Appellant: No

Counsel present for DMR: George M. Casey

Appellant present: No

Hearing Officer Decision on January 27, 2004

The ABAS completed when the appellant was 18 showed that he had significant adaptive deficits in every area of his life. The evaluation of adaptive behavior administered when he was 19 suggested that the appellant's adaptive functioning fell within the parameters of mental retardation.  The appellant's mother testified that the appellant was diagnosed with Familial Dysautonomia and sensory neuropathy. She also said that the appellant was self-abusive and had no ability to live independently. The appellant's doctor testified that the appellant's deficits had a lot to do with his Dysautonomia and that the score of 81 might be an overestimate of his intellectual functioning. He also stated that in terms of the appellant's adaptive functioning he was mentally retarded.

The DMR expert pointed out that there were significant discrepancies between the appellant's intellectual and adaptive functioning.  However, he further noted that the appellant's cognitive functioning was consistently found in at least the low average range and that other reports of the appellant's academic testing were also consistent with his IQ scores.  

The hearing officer found that the appellant was not mentally retarded, because there was no evidence of significantly sub-average intellectual functioning.