DMR Eligibility Decision by H.O. Hudgins 11/9/2005

Date:

11/09/05

Author:

Marcia Hudgins

DMR Eligibility Decision by H.O. Hudgins 11/9/2005

Outcome: eligible

Keyword: testing prior to age 18; one on one testing conditions

Hearing Officer: Hudgins

Counsel present for Appellant: N/A

Counsel present for DMR: David E. Fleischman, Douglas J. White

Appellant present: Yes

Hearing Officer decision: 11/9/2005

Commissioner letter: 1/4/2006

Year	Test	Age	Score			Diagnosis in report
Year	Test	Age	Verb.	Perf.	Full	Diagnosis in report
1988	Stanford-Binet	4y 4m	No test scores reported			Appellant was delayed about 1 year in fine motor and receptive language skills and slightly more delayed in expressive language and social development motor skills and single word vocabulary were closer to age level.
1991	WISC-R	6y 6m	No test scores reported			Could not be computed because appellant would not participate. The comprehensive subtest showed a genuine limited understanding of language, and internalization of social norms and conventions.
1992	WISC-III	8y 3m			60	Mildly retarded range
1996	WISC-III	12 y	75	58	64	Pervasive developmental disorder with autistic features. IQ was in borderline range or below.
1997	WISC-III	13y 5m	74	76	69	Mildly retarded range
2004	WAIS-III	19	79	78	77
2005	WAIS-III	21	81	72	75	Administered under optimal conditions. Would have not preformed as well under less structured setting, found to be cognitively impaired and had extremely limited adaptive skills appearing to meet the criteria for mental retardation.

The Hearing Officer found that because the majority of appellant’s valid test scores for tests given prior to his 18 birthday were below 75 he had manifested the criteria for mental retardation. The Hearing Officer concluded that the higher test scores which he received at one point were due to the optimal conditions of one on one testing under which he was tested thus should be discounted as such. Since there was no dispute as to the appellants sufficient adaptive deficits required to make a finding of mental retardation and the appellants need of specialized support in three areas thus the appellant was found eligible for DMR services.

Attachment	Size
Hudgins decision 11-9-05 WO JJG_0.pdf (5.87 MB)	5.87 MB