DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Adamo 2010-6

DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Adamo -- 2010

Outcome: ineligible

Keyword: unusual IQ test; underlying psychiatric deficits

Hearing Officer: Jeanne Adamo

Counsel present for Appellant: yes (redacted)

Counsel present for DDS: James Bergeron

Appellant present: yes

Hearing Officer decision: 2010

Commissioner letter: 2010

            The appeal was denied because the appellant did not have the requisite IQ to meet the criteria for DDS services. 

            The department argued that her lower IQ / poor test taking skills was due to her various mental health diagnoses (autism, anxiety, depression, mood disorder, bipolar)  rather than mental retardation.  They implied that it was because of her mental health diagnoses that her testing was poor.  In addition, they categorized her as having “splinter skills”: her verbal scores were much higher than other areas tested.  

            In addition, the department had Dr. Johnson, give expert testimony that appellant did not meet the requirements for mental retardation.  He testified that it is very likely for those who have “underlying psychiatric deficits” to score low in some tested areas.  Moreover, he implied that one of the IQ tests administered to appellant (where her score was lowest) was unreliable.  He stated that as a psychiatrist of several years he had never heard of this IQ test.  It was called the Wasserman II IQ test, which was reportedly used by appellant's school.  Appellant score on this test was under 70, whereas on the other tests that Dr. Johnson was familiar with and believed were credible, her score was above 70.  It was implied that there was some kind of fraud regarding this test and coincidentally her lowest IQ score. 

           Appellant argued that this was a reliable test score and not to discount it solely because they had not heard of it.  It was also argued on cross-examination of Dr. Johnson, that there could be a circumstance where an individual has a reported IQ of 75 but still needs DDS services. 

            The hearing officer concluded that appellant was not mentally retarded pursuant to the requirements and therefore denied her appeal.