DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Silver 2010-2

DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Elizabeth Silver 2010-2

Outcome: Ineligible

Keyword: PDD, distraction during testing, behavioral issues

Hearing Officer: Elizabeth Silver

Counsel present for Appellant: N/A

Counsel present for DDS: John C. Geenty, Jr.

Appellant present: Yes

Hearing Officer decision: 2010

Commissioner Howe letter: 2010

IQ

FUNCTIONAL ABILITY

Issue is whether Appellant is mentally retarded as defined in 115 CMR 2.01 (a person with significantly sub-average intellectual functioning existing concurrently and related to significant limitations in adaptive functioning).

Appellant is a 21-year-old male.  At age of three or four Appellant was diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder, which was later confirmed and remains his diagnosis.  Appellant’s parents described him as able to manage in familiar settings but not in new environments, and explained that he is too trusting and does not understand money.  Appellant was enrolled in school and worked a few hours a week under the supervision of a job coach.  His mother argued that the school has been helpful but that he will require services when he reaches age 22.

Dr. Costigan testified as an expert for the Department.  While most of the tests confirmed that the Appellant’s working memory and processing speed were significantly impaired, the tests also showed his vocabulary and verbal skills to be in the average range.  Dr. Costigan testified that these verbal skills were most closely tied to overall IQ.  He explained that the discrepancies among the different tests were a result of the Appellant’s PDD, such that the low scores were attributable to impairments arising from PDD while the high scores were more representative of the Appellant’s cognitive functioning.  

The Hearing Officer found that the Appellant met the Department’s criteria for adaptive limitations. The remaining issue was whether the Appellant met the criteria of the cognitive prong for eligibility.  The Hearing Officer noted the range of results from the Appellant’s earliest evaluation.  The Hearing Officer found that behavioral issues interfered with the Appellant’s test-taking abilities, undermining the reliability of the two WISC-III.  Finally, the Hearing Officer noted that in the most recent test, the WAIS-III, the Appellant scored in the low average/borderline range of ability. 

The Hearing Officer found Dr. Costigan’s testimony persuasive and determined that the Appellant’s PDD distracted him and caused him to perform poorly on some tests but not others.  The Hearing Officer rejected the WISC-III test results and accepted the results from the other two tests where the Appellant was less distracted.  Based on those tests, the Hearing Officer found the Appellant does not have significantly sub-average intellectual functioning and therefore that the Appellant is not mentally retarded.  As such, the Appellant’s cognitive functioning exceeds the Department’s threshold and therefore he is ineligible for DDS services.