DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Adamo and Silver 2010-33

2010 - 33

DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Adamo/Silver

Outcome: ineligible

Keyword: verbal learning disability, subtest score discrepancy

Hearing Officer: Jeanne Adamo / Elizabeth Silver

Counsel present for Appellant: Michael J. Roy

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

Appellant present: Yes

Hearing Officer Decision: 2010

Commissioner letter: 2010

IQ

FUNCTIONAL ABILITY

Appellant failed by the preponderance of the evidence to show that he meets the definition of mental retardation. The Department conceded that the Appellant meet the criteria in regards to Adaptive Functioning. Departments Doctor concluded that based on the above test results that Appellant did not meet the standards.

Appellants Doctor, challenged above conclusion and urged that two full scale I scores of 71 met the Departments criteria for eligibility.

Appellants IQ scores ranged from 71 to 91, and all tests appear to be valid. Although the Appellant has two scores just marginally above the department criteria, he has scores of 81 and 91 thus making him not mentally retarded. Appellant has serious adaptive functioning limitation buy these limitations would result from other diagnosis not mental retardation.

In making the determination that the appellant was not mentally retarded, the department’s doctor, stated that the department’s criteria focuses on cognitive power and the application of that power. He said that there are many reasons why a full scale score would not pertain. One is when there is a large discrepancy among the factor scores so the full scale is not interpretable; another is if some other diagnosis influences the test results. Summarizing that Mental retardation does not have to do with attention issues, executive functioning issues, psychiatric issues, motivational issues or any other issues in the DSM. Appellants more accurate diagnosis is a verbal learning disability.