. • •

orne

COMMONw-gALrif OF . MASSACDEP" T Or:KENTAL•

114::13:0...A0peat

This decision is issueRetardation (13mA):(115begnii. i*OCtofier.Massachusetts; and completed on December 15, 2003 at 0'Developmental Center in, Waltha ri, Massachusetts:

Those:present for all or part'of the proceedings were:•

ATIpellantAppellant's Mother

ellant"s te

. Aniline)! szw.

.Menursuant tothe regulations of rnePepartinentor.Men

CMR 6.34.E 6.34) ha

ediald

estimonye evidence consists oNximatelY 2 ho s of ora

no Witnesses.

mvExp*E$ENTIp

40d. by D11r1R. Pu:Kpl.oipt.0 Pie A ellaY t reSaid

Whether the Appellant meets the eligibility criteria for DMR supports by reason ofmental'retardation as set out in 115 CMR 6.03(1).

SUMMARY QF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED

1. This Appeal is based on the Appellant's denial of eligibility for DMR services.

2. The Appellant is a 22-year-old female who resides (D1)

3. One (1) evaluation of the Appellant's intellectual functioning before the age ofighteen (18) was entered into evidende (D2)

4. One (1) evaluation of the Appellant's intellectual f-unctioning after the age of

(90) adaptive assessments. She stated that it was her,respoligi ofFriation relative to a aetermination of; eligibility for DMR.services In this case she collected clinical information, test reSUltsand;ducatiiinalinformation relative to the Appellant. She met with the Appellant and her family andcompleted,the AAA. When all of the information Wascoriipiled,Ms!Freedman sent it tothe Regional Team for a determination Of eligibility. She:teStified that theRegional Eligibility team found the Appellant to be ineligible for DMR, services. Ms.Freedman testified that althOugh the Appellant showed significant limitations in three (3)adaptive skill areas: Co :Oke;P,UnctianalAcadeMies*nd'SelfOire0iOn,,Des not considerSelf-PirectiOn; Social. Skill's' or Leisure when deteiltiniiii4 k

She also testified that she was not sure if cognitive deficits or, einOti4nal issucause of the Appellant's limitations. She further testified that she did,revieassessment and found it to be consistent with . Free nan statedthat although the Appellant was living at th at the time of heradaptive assessment that she did not interview s se oo She explained that it isher practice to interview most students at home. She typically meets with the family who

a better sense of where the'person was coming at inl's elr"gib i for MReking ServieesUaet! worworkre

testified at at the time e Appellant's el gibidity deterresponsi ative to 6 process. He was a cox srCommittee and' he idtesting. He did not participate anythe Co 6 testified that he reviewed the I te ', ,,

611' wat:siXteen'' ;16) years 6 He Pointecores and:the large variation

factors ig0!)ility, tleic-.:.": , :retaida on fend tofiat;spe

. 04 . 4 similarity orrnance scores as well as on stibtests, . did

not agree, Wi

the Appellant's mental ability. He did agree however that the Verbal' score may be anaccurate measure of her verbal ability and that the Performance score may be an acctuatemeasure of her performance skills. Dr. Higgins went on to testify relative to the test that

thhe administered to the Appellant. He noted that there,was an even greater.(4 points) betWeerithe'Verhal and the Performanee scores. He pointed out that-theAppellanes score:on Comprehension sithtest whiCh includes: socialjt,igg*n was very

te..her scorei.ori.,:the, :.giinilaiitieS was just below average. On thePerformancees he noted that she scored in sthesuPerier range - onthe Picture Arrangenieni'Subtest,

He: explained that it is possible that the 'APpellant haS a learning disability which could beresponsible for the difference in her scores or that such discrePancies'could be due todepression or the significant medications that she was taking at the time he administeredthe test. He testified" that these medications could have interfered with her true potential.He stated that it was his opinion that the Appellant is not mentally retarded.

,11. John Robert gins, Ed.D. testified as an expertwitness tor DMR. Dr Higgins

.114c1 rtvY.0 (2)

ent;ision , Made bylien the

eeriiSeiare of

0. ques

tateineothat: iihe:resuirsOf this testriConi4, tie,a close .osiirriatO of

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Aftera careful review of all of the evidence and desPite her need for continuing supportsI Rind that,the Appellant has.failed to show by'a prePOnderance of tiie eVidence that Shemeets the DIVIReligibility criteria. My specific reasons are as follows:

In order to be eligible for DMR supports, an individual who is 18 years of age or oldermust meet the three criteria set forth at 115 CMR 6.03: (a) she must be domiciled in theCommonwealth, (b) she must be a person with Mental Retardation as defined in 115CMR. 2.01, and (c) she must be in need of specialized §uppOi.rts in three or more of thefollowing seven adaptive skill areas - communication' self.:care honieliying community

ctional academics and worls. Therels no f sp?ulethatAppellant Meets the first criteria specifically find, that Sfi61t0,0S'YhO'critetiOr•

that she is, not mentallyietarded as that term iS'defiled in 115 CMR 2.01.

By statute, M.O.L. c. 123B, section 1, a mentally retarded person "is a person who, aa result f inadequately' developed or impaired intelligence, as deterinitted:by clinicalauthorities as described. in the regulations of the department is Sullsttitia14.71itui,ted in hisability earn or a "e4 by es4lbilsbed, s s availabi fOre‘ e4Y4.001 of1

person's A tonin e communityonsAt9nopted tsoCiatiOn on en

as the cl inical.' gilt o•rlh. tyto :iv ers , in ereattiiii``inadequately: intelligen

must aye 'Si 140 avefunctionin as an score of approximately70 to 75 or below, onassessments thatincludeS one or more individually : administered general intelligencetestS, (b)relatettliinitatiOns . in two or more of the follOWing adaptive"Skill areas-:communication, self care, licime living, social skills, community .usb; self dire4ion, healthand safety, functional acadeMics, leisure and work innst. exist conCurrentlyWithsuhaVei4.1"fititelleerual:NuCti6fihig and the individual' must; have MatiikSted'the criteria (a)and (b).befOre the age of 18.

I find that the Appellant is not "Mentally retarded" as that term is used in statute andregulatiOn for the detertnination of eligibility for 13MR stipperts, Although there wasevidence presenteti: ihowing that the APpellant receiVed.'a Full Scale IQ score on one (1)test of 70 to 75 or below prior to age 18, the fourteen (14) point discrepancy between theVerbal (69) and the Perfomiance (83) scores as well as the intratest scatter (3-9) suggeststhat soniething other than mental retardation is the cause of the lOw Ftill Scale IQ ,score of73. The testing :done by Dr. Higgins when the Appellant was 18 years old resulted . in aFull,Scale IQ score of 71$' which is not consistent with 4 of mental retardation.Again , the very large . twenty-two (22) poinfdiscrepancy between the AppellantS Verbaland .PerfOrnianee IQ scores and the intratest scatter.(37 1) is not consistent with adiagnosis of mental retardation. Although the Appellant does appear to have cognitive

While there. Was:eVidence presented relative to the Aher needfOt.COntin.. in rSti not givereaching' toy. det ."'' rinse I onn ,that

finxctional limitations andera onto stic l evidence in

e e e Wed

coMi

h'ave-eviden6e that ...s e is in need oadapilifr . still. areas:06i181"

specialized supports its only t'wol by DMI To be elzlle for D1

•