DDS Eligibility Decision by H.O. Silver 2010-13

Date:

01/01/10

Author:

Elizabeth Silver

Silver 2010-13

Outcome: ineligible

Keyword: high IQ scores, adaptive functioning

Hearing Officer: Elizabeth Silver

Counsel present for Appellant: No

Counsel present for DDS: John Geenty, Jr.

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)
				Verb.		Perf.		Full
1999	WISC-III		9	87		73		78		VCI 89, POI 79, and FFD 75. Appellant described as overall borderline intellectual functioning. Verbal-Performance split was statistically significant at 14 pts. Test results offered with reservation due to Appellant’s distractibility during evaluation.
2002	WJ-III COG		12							Appellant scored in Low Average to Average range on all 11 of the Cluster Skills and on all but two of the 15 Individual Test Results with scores from 81-102 (the scores below low average were Visual Matching 78 and Retrieval Fluency 65). He had Average scores in the areas of Verbal Ability, Long-Term Retrieval and Fluid Reasoning and low average abilities in Thinking Ability, Cognitive Efficiency, Broad Attention, Phonemic Awareness, Processing Speed, Short Term Memory, Working Memory and Executive Processes.
2002	WJ-III ACH		12							Appellant’s scores were all in the Low Average to Average range with one exception, Written Expression (65).
2002	WISC-III		12	91		72		80		Presented with reservation due to Appellant’s attention and concentration skills that fluctuated significantly. Scores placed Appellant in Low Average range of intelligence. Because of the significant 19 pt. difference between Verbal and Performance scores, Full Scale Score was not considered to be an accurate summary of general intelligence. Appellant’s factor scores were Verbal Comprehension 93, Perceptual Organization 77, Freedom from Distraction 84, and Processing Speed 77.
2002	KTEA-B		12							Appellant scored of 115 on Math (84th percentile), 99 on Reading (47th percentile), 99 on Spelling (42nd percentile) and 102 on Battery Composite (55th percentile)
2004	WISC-IV		14					72		Showed pattern of functional deficits that were consistent with compromise of frontal brain systems and functions. Appellant’s overall test scores revealed borderline intellectual functioning with Full Scale IQ of 72 with PRI 98, VCI 91, WMI 77, and PSI 62.
2008		WAIS-III	17		91		81		87		VCI 96 (average), POI – 91 (average), WMI – 75 (borderline) and PSI – 69 (low). Appellant demonstrated significant cognitive variability, with significantly better skills on tasks requiring language use and understanding and visual spatial problem solving, than on tasks requiring sustained auditory attention or concentration, or speed of information processing.
2008		WJ-III ACH									Appellant’s performance on reading comprehension and basic writing skills was average, low average on broad reading and broad math, and low on math calculation skills. General Intellectual Ability 8th percentile, Verbal Ability 44th percentile, Thinking Ability 15th percentile, Cognitive Efficiency 1st percentile, Comprehension Knowledge 44th percentile, Long Term Retrieval 39th percentile, Visual-Spatial Thinking 25 percentile, Auditory Processing 8th percentile, Fluid Reasoning 22nd Percentile, Short Term Memory 2nd Percentile.
2010		Stanford Binet -5	19						82		Verbal IQ: 85 (low average), Nonverbal IQ 81 (low average) Full Scale IQ 82 (low average), Fluid Reasoning 94 (average), Knowledge 74 (borderline), Quantitative Reasoning 86 (low average), Visual-Special Processing 85 (low average), Working Memory 83 (low average).

FUNCTIONAL ABILITY

Year	TESTS	Age	Score	Diagnosis regarding MR in report, if any (or info on disability affecting result of testing)
2010	Neurological Evaluation	19		Doctor found Appellant’s overall profile was consistent with neurological-based frontal systems of dysfunction giving rise to both a dysexecutive syndrome (including symptoms of ADHD) and a neuropsychiatric disorder characterized by atypical and aggressive behavior.
2010	ABAS-II	19		Appellant’s parents were the raters. GAC 54, Conceptual 59, Social 61, Practical 54.

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 currently 20 years old and lives with his parents. He attends school five times a week and has programs in vocational and life skills. He also works 10-15 hours a week at Stop and Shop. Appellant was diagnosed at birth with heterotaxy/asplenia syndrome and experienced chronic hypoxia until he underwent corrective surgery at age 12. Appellant was held back in Kindergarten and throughout his schooling experienced difficulty focusing due to ADHD. Appellant does not appear to have any friends and has trouble with social skills. In fifth grade, Appellant had a MRI that revealed brain damage. Further testing showed neurologically-based frontal systems dysfunction giving rise to both a dysexecutive syndrome and a neuropsychiatric disorder characterized by atypical and aggressive behavior. Appellant’s mother testified that Appellant’s current IQ is 72 and that Appellant needs help to be able to live in the community.

Dr. Crenshaw, expert witness for DDS testified that the Appellant’s testing throughout his life has indicated average range cognitive abilities. Appellant’s verbal abilities are essentially within average limits, visual processing has been in the average range since 2004 and there has been cognitive growth over time and therefore Appellant does not meet Department regulations for services based on intellectual abilities. Dr. Crenshaw suggested that the Appellant’s lower scores were due to trouble focusing.

Hearing Officer concluded that Appellant meets the adaptive functioning prong of the Department’s regulations but did not meet the cognitive eligibility criteria requirement. From the earliest record, Appellant’s cognitive testing has resulted in scores that exceed the Department criteria for eligibility. Appellant’s verbal intellect has consistently been measured within average range. His visual processing has never been lower than Borderline range, and since he entered his teens his abilities have also measured within the Average range. Hearing Officer concluded that Appellant therefore is not eligible for DDS services.

Attachment	Size
2010 - 13 Silver.pdf (883.82 KB)	883.82 KB