DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Silver 2010-39

Date:

01/01/10

Author:

Elizabeth Silver

DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Elizabeth Silver 2010-39

Outcome: Ineligible

Keyword: autism, discrepancy in IQ scores, low verbal scores

Hearing Officer: Elizabeth Silver

Counsel present for Appellant: No

Counsel present for DDS: Barbara Green Whitbek

Appellant present: Yes

Hearing Officer decision: 2010

Commissioner letter: 2010

IQ

Year	Test	Age	Score			Diagnosis regarding MR in report (or info on disability affecting result of testing)
Year	Test	Age	Vb.	Perf.	Full
1995						Borderline to low range
1998						Borderline to low range
2001	WISC-III	9		63-79	83-88	Unable to respond to verbal commands.
2001	Leiter	9			83-88	Fluid Reasoning 89-89, Brief IQ 84-90. Impressive areas in cognitive growth, average abilities on motor and nonmotor tasks. Delay in attention and visual sequencing
2004	WIDC-IV		50		53	PRI 79, WMI 52, PSI 62.
	WISC IV		47		60	WISC-IV Appellant unable to complete any of the verbal components; Integrated Process Approach used instead. VCI 47, PRI 75, WMI 59, and PSI 91, and her FSIQ was 60.
2007	WISC-IV	15				VCI 58, PRI 86, PSI 92, WMI 71
2007	UNIT	15	50		53	PRI 79; WMI 52; PSI 62; VCI 47; PRI 75; WMI 59; PSI 91 FSIQ 60
Unk	UNIT				79	Memory 87, Reasoning 75, Symbolic 83, and Nonsymbolic 79
	WAIS-IV					VCI 58, PRI 86, PSI 92, WMI 71Appellant’s psych asserted the the full scale IQ score should not be interpreted as a valid representation of the Appellant's global skills and that Cognitive functioning should be considered according to each domain.
2010	SB-5	18	48
2010	Leiter	18				Brief IQ of 78

FUNCTIONAL ABILITY

Year	TESTS	Age	Score	Diagnosis regarding MR in report, if any (or info on disability affecting result of testing)
2008	WAIT-II	17		Reading 50, Mathematics 42, Spelling 64
?	WIAT-II			Reading 47 (extremely low) ;a Mathematics 40 (extremely low). Written Expression incomplete, Spelling 71
	WJ-III ACH		53	Score in the very low range, <0.1 percentile. Broad Reading 56 (very low range, <0.2 percentile); Broad Math 43 (very low range, <0.1 percentile); Broad Written Language 72 (low range, <3 rd percentile).
2007	OTS/A	15		Manual Coordination below average; visual Perceptual/Motor Skills 97(average) on Berry VMI, which assesses the extent to which individuals can integrate visual and motor abilities; visual perception 81 (below average) ; Motor Coordination 90 (average).
2010	OTR	18		Visual Perceptual/Motor Skills 79 on Berry VMI (low), Visual Perception 76 (low); Motor Coordination 76 (low). Appellant’s psych stated the scores placed the Appellant in the low range in ability to integrate her visual and motor abilities in relation to same age peers. Appellant’s psych noted the decline in scores since 2007, but said the decline "does not appear to be due to a decline in functioning but due to an increase in requirement of specificity for same age peers."
2009	CELF	18		Core Language Index Score 40, less than 0.1 percentile
2009	PPVT-III	18	56	Percentile rank of 0.2; age equivalent of 7 years, 6 months
2010	WAIT (selected subsets)	18		Word reading 67 (grade equivalent 3-04); Reading comprehension (GE 1-02); Numerical Operations 62 (GE 2-07); Math Problem Solving 59 (GE 2-04); Spelling 69 (GE 4-00)
2009	Vineland-II			Communication 42, Daily Living Skills 58, Socialization 46, Adaptive Behavior Composite 48
2010	ABAS-II	18		Significant weaknesses in Communication, Functional Academics, Social Skills, Community Use, and Health and Safety Skills
2008	MDS	16		Low Extended Work Training/Provocational range of vocational functioning; Intermediate care/partial support

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).

DDS conceded at the outset that the Appellant met the adaptive functioning prong of the eligibility requirements. The remaining issue was whether the Appellant met the requirements of the cognitive functioning prong.

The Appellant was 19 years old and had been diagnosed with autism at about the age of 3. She had been tested repeatedly over the years, and the results of those tests consistently resulted in extremely low verbal scores and confirmed her diagnosis of Autism. All parties agreed that the Appellant would be unable to function independently.

Dr. Shook, DDS psychologist, agreed that the Appellant’s cognitive functioning was limited but argued that it was not in the range of DDS’s definition of sub-average intellectual functioning. After reviewing the assessments of the Appellant, the Hearing Officer found that they all confirmed her diagnosis of Autism, and further that, with one exception, none of the assessments provided a diagnosis of mental retardation. The Hearing Officer concluded that the Appellant’s evaluations consistently placed her above DDS’s threshold for eligibility. The Appellant had very limited adaptive functioning skills. However, prior to analyzing those skills it must first be determined whether she has significantly sub-average intellectual functioning. In the intellectual functioning areas, the Appellant’s scores were above Department eligibility levels. The vast discrepancies in the Appellant’s scores, many of which were above the Department’s threshold, precluded the Hearing Officer from determining that the Appellant was mentally retarded under DDS regulations. Therefore, the Hearing Officer found that the Appellant was ineligible for DDS services.

Attachment	Size
2010 - 39 Silver.pdf (1.93 MB)	1.93 MB