is Appeal ba5e Appellant's denial of eligibility, or IVIR services.

11111111111.1011.1ëllpt is a 21 year-old rilap who resides at the

. 1)4)

4. The report of one psychological evaluation after age 18 was entered into evidence.

V1/28)

11 t.V.v08.9 years 8 : :111-9r411$. of age, ,hg was referred f9an.as0Oral :/4itentiO;d:

he 0..doitti6ii , ,/as ,n,:: ,,,..fig,,,,;:,-.S,ti/i5....il,iill '''t9'' .(114

,,o,;:p' .1.!2.;.;.1..-,',:'.''' :' 'cl:' ' ''

oKinoted inhiS46 '1' 0.14,,.,,

44,ed. ,follo, ' (V6'13: '''' , ,,

'..:VdS':ttY40„' '4':0ifermtincel :seo p b7' arid'

, ,; .,i,,z,,i., tt..,'

0.01 ' O'fili150.4P*TOY'' y..4t$:'61 ; b.

S'teSt; be're isr zc,ptri:ro4::.p. it .1 score: ofFull Scale IQ store. of 97. Mr,..,bi P0.01*,t0Sto4

sler IritElligcrice::: SCale for pip.dfén - Thit4:,...ditiO (V15c,-

an ,.:r eceiyed. a Verbal .IQ score of 85, ,: a:Performance IQ

"''''.'"' '"'" " ' stated.."' - 'r .. ....: ii'iii.f Ai' .;:$00,..V ..7k :Mr.: Paola in tts:rcp9 :. a :: e

e,,Of 106110 .., ,T119.',.:.. 64d il::ritths at

! ;...514.y.. lgeig(,0

4'.0,

- - , • :

011 g

' § e wit.';: ..,.T.,:'.,p‘',edo

S .19 s,•iiltiatOr' e.

as' wellas some 0 'sessive..,e0Mpulsive ,.stit scOreS:refleetS the :d601.M6Otal impact,0f the

ey Were wheifrhe 'ad been teste . ,threel's::attentiOn, de. 6 P j:n+:0e" ative impact On n led`

'aver go-,„;nt.

StWbf

the

ellantwas 19 years 3 months of age, he was referred for aetermining his cognitive le-fti and fitnctionifig.. On

natterbeek; IsSy:D., a LiCensed.CliniCalMiStered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-

,,,, est the Appellant receiyed..a Verbal IQ score of 81, aa Full Scale IQ score of 74 which Dr". ,Sehnatterbeck

trlitie range of intellectual fünetiOning. Ile wentant's:case the Fall-Seale IQ score is leSS meanin

,gfutbecause

Between the scores that compose either the Verbal' or the

Performance!Seales, Ile statedthat the Appellant's verbal' reasoning abilities are mostapPrOppately.'alwaeteriied'bY!his score on the Verbal . Comprehension Index, which is in

ti* tiiioag6 Oh e:' and . ' approximately 32% of his peers. Dr. §chn.atterbeck

tOted.thagollot!§ c intca _proMe reflected a high degree of psychological-,

diStreSS'. Ptense, apathetic and withdrawn. His thinking and.

vieAsApOt imself,04, the work..seCined to .be quite disconiaged, contlised and. .

t0 1;:i'g ' to at the ApPellant found it hard to; keep'his Mind O,n a taskixsor.. .,. ,.,::

•

0 Mt.

averageUW .„.

i bffer

tt.29Q.:When„slut On!to'wig tested by:

Sehtiatterbee

*" 1.411OSiS' Of

doctors were trying to determine if the Appellant had .OnieS Alt that:the a;t0,e, She

w has. to domain. is condition .,produces sonic deformities. She

S'ylveSter in 1996 confirms ard'explainS this . diagnosis.

tatediliat the Appellant was seen in 1988 by a developmentale Appellant was almost 5, years of age. She testified that

mind the Appellant to have wide'ihninbS , and oes.ttoeCila

illiorageramweeeemimmilINONINMESIN

• .•-••••: •

some sit i9r:

or6:00. .

r:StittectikhiS' .:

e.Appellatit

e itive ticsof perseVera iOn.

en; e APPellant waso'IS Was

ve a Oat: e

atiVe,to arreport front theRus ,Presb;̂

ir^al^igical. Sciences. S.neck t

lid tles' was increasing. 5) .

Luke' s Medical • • •e. t11):. •

Oh*

ortfrona the Larel: of j,661.:Wifeyam

is onsiye

iAlelidations:'sedtfOti'score, .

a:rrientallY:retarded' level at thai time: Msenient Ve s e;ttoedthat,the , .

:'iS , at,a' lower level ,than ins IQ score:: She.§tated that an IQ"Se:s0:111.any:Other IQ tests had,lieenigNen.and .that the psychiatrist

pPellarit was a consultant and did not have access to the Appellant's

estified.relative toa Discharge Suminar,y prepared by two physicianscispital for Children and Yotth. She pointed out that in the

tics' Was used relative to the disruption in the Appellant'svvay thereby cOnfirming her earlier testimony that he had

elaY,s

organizenaive tics". She also pointed out that the report stated that the

for a lifetiine of institutional care. (A7)

4$104,.

relative to the report of the psychological evaluation conducted by

A.'1

on*: Y. -Of-2001 :0*P thq Appellantt Was 9 Years 3 monthse .stated t the report

hiC laces iii in the.

ppellant''s!'score could lie arange of plus or 'd inus 1'0ow the' a1S pdint`ed outcon^tecps±aid behavior is

Brie 1.Op

s acut-off,; ,otio:',Mi, OA the plus

6ingl§S5 shOnld lie. She stated that the 'CAP was given

e• score. (A8)

onin

teStified relative to a uarterly;l'.rogress Report:from the, 0W, 111Qtwheglen

eS's)Y

ftlie ellant should be vieWed:as,a whole person and ify ale* points; he ShOidd'he viewed as heeding services.

0-5.07* witness if she were familiar withAlfthat she was familiar.wi e re

e tt6erS6n ,

nta^ly retarded:on n e report. The

,,,,score was:101 W e was to*d'by'Novawould place hina:niAheaVerage range. , She agreed

one in :1401,Inade mention of his ties and the otfinlodtascore She agreed that the tePOrt indicated that die ApPellant's

lso, •.i rifs OCD and medication side. effects. She agreed

ortst;ated,*a(ihe IQ scores he received on this e*aininatiOn .Shotild be viewed

stitnate-'0 itive Otential; his.trne..ahilities in the low average1e a• e a om•C

OCD but nothing inthe report indicated

'inenta.She agreed that the 'Larkin. Center. Report based the

. • . .Appellant7.6

osiS on hiS functional level and that the facility did not have,access. to :scoreS . in ing a diagnosis. She agreed that the.report from the Riverview140Spital for Children and YOuth indicated that the Appellant's:. disabling symptom

. most

was his ties ar4that.he nianifeSted -the Most severe case of Tourettel.s disorder that the

ediatrie:netirologiSt had ever Seen. She agkeed that in 2003 Wh wen the Appellant as 19

score Was 81 and his Fall Scale IQ score was 74. (A1-3, A6-8)

er's .. e''' ee:iri.' eCial:Ed,,.. .. ... Oilt0 1.y.:FP....

olr.!ri. level, not at numbers§...1i.e.:sta* O'O .,..tirOno.:, .

ative to 14 -081§'Attlie SChdel leVe an : if the child i.'s a few . p0iiii§ off

aS.,10.*.,.. itictiorim, ,,.oo go strictly i*t4enumbers. 1 . She stated:that:4;1e

IdOistw at caused tiie deficits but that she befiee&trie'

''... '

trieSs'.Stated that there was no lack ofwere not :0:tge1 but . ati.$ '66-' i:)- .7, ,. i

mo .,, , in'.40.-,3:0 ...,....,:,: ,. :

.'filleii 6b. cl'F'ti''f(>' ..r.i.otli.\\(). writ

9 $01)...'g. : i.000.:,'grt.that .s,,erwas

s .044 Nother̀ Mental.re 16p.....:glie:Potilt04 0iii...thp.t. if the

ppellanthad ad emotion she would have. stated':that 'in .heir',:Petitien. (Al)

One;:;a 01, 'Okitinfiointhe pstified on. behalf of theo not come Close to

pellant's ties are(9 to ,his

eel1ai t is fee

ant call learn but neeri to help him to be a

'esVOtt.

faceots Of refit'Oreinent. The

erson who can make apellant.can work;' `e 'Can' do well if he

anzo ►d stated th4 the AppellantlaS staited'io makeliri COntinue to progresal

eft witnessSor:DMR. Shestatectt.hot she hase s e' t . :ettliO'Aoetwilt,..,.,

eeri:::p 0-:atirit 0-*011 . as

dbenntents, at were , resented bythe Appellant on the day of the hearing. She reviewed

DMR's .APplicatiOrtfor 010.bilitYand stated that the Appellant was fOtind ineligible. Shestated that .She did not .0*e the initial decision relative to the Appellant's ineligibility.She.Statedthatibe:deOiSionsas-made'hy Dr Match. She stated-that Dr. Match wrote an

ltgihiii ':fte b4.iel4ti;vetti:the,Appellant. Dr. parry stated that Dr. Match's report

„Cate ' ,0; ant:hid longfustory of psychiatric, behavioral, developnientalIFi ,/: 4.ftOktiii did not support a : findingof mental

IA that the Appellant's ver ' -afii* falls withino! ogragq‘ e;::* is nonverbal:Ability: is m tl e!borderline range.

atch, fonndthat'tthe Appelltifit reads and comprehends at a level much

higher than would be expected of someone with mental retardation. Dr. Parry stated that

she agreed with the deteritihation that the Appellant is not an individual with mentalretar4atiOn: She Statdd'that she. based her deCision on a number of factors including

is ver PeliPt's

is ri 3

scores. ,1. asvore,f.peeie4:1*: : :*AVORapt,i419$9..*).1.eiihe was - 5 •eai*O larit.WaS.fririCtiO* ij.i. e.00,40:t,040::Cif ,

'She stated of 96 meant thathishis verbal abill ,was Oerage • ...,,stated that 'ogrof0410:rwo, eaverage.,...-: ,1 ,, . .u..7,score :;.:i

''

averagtl Ntdu 110Ve ttiohihg.'Shy agi6score of 101 was solidly th the average,rahge. (A2)

received by the Appellant in 1990 when, he was 6 years of ageSt Ore was in the low aver ormance IQ score

is'thll Scale score was in 'e, (A2)ayAra

stated :

e.!;eeei.Yed'by the,Appel antin 7 1993 en he was 9Sh 'sttatec fihat at this time flare' Appellantt° s Verbal 1Q score was

iihikneel see 'dimee IQ'score was in ebOrdertitte'range.

e individual who wrote the report relative to the 1 .993 testing wastcS were interfering with the testing is tics and

e report alsoorl. More difficult

t ve

stated that at tames the Appellant - on an'easy itemode 'heir stet also noted ra his re ioit tliat tl'e'APpeliant co e,.e,,

eek a di-of %e lea i, bti... ',,...,.,;, ,.ce ' r.iest. S :etr,on t pr f̂elAppellant's&3.. itil')e abilities were more likely in the average to loW'' verage range. henoted that e -fics'were More significant than three ye:ars prior. Dr. P stated that therewas notl mg In the report that would make her doubt the evaluator's conclusions. Shealso agreed that nothing in the document would lead her to believe that the Appellant hadmenial retatdation. (A2)

fq4iPed that if one is being timed while taking a test, tics could distract fromtatiSe!ohe , ta:1OSe.tithe.' She stated.that theie..:vere no other documents

seofes:prior to his .hecoriring 1$. Sheort- of I idting done aftefage 18: Dr. Parry..Stated thk she

would not rely soley o'n.,the scores of testing done in 1989 and 1990 in Making diagnosis. ..becarise:they:Were not accoMpanied by aTeport written•by the examiner. She stated that

you Would usually Want the fall' report especially if someone did very poorly. If someone

tedably Want to p;..441.ity: of de tests : Sh

at what ap

ince.tirry

.

cores. A8)

^ssible ,that the Tottrettes'or,the OC or the behaviorsid

;i;VO,0 mtee onave!itite

C kcations coiitd also cause problems

ed at thp'Ap 'Comprehension. Sheduca b

`11 "` de ievel She ii)di ated tit he-was 20 e,

someone w won: She stated on an acadontetahieventent test,

tlae cock Johnson, the Appellant aver4g6d'ark 8th grade reading level. (D 4-5)

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

After ,a, :careful review of all of the evidence and despite his disabilities and his obviousneed tot continuing ,supports, I find that the Appellant has failed to show by a

reporideratice of.the eVidence that he meets the DMR eligibility criteria. My specificreasons are as follows:

In order to be eligible fur DMR supports, an individual who is 18 years of age or olderust'uteet the three:criteria set fOrth at 115 CIvilt. 6.03: (a) he must be domiciled in the

onweallk (..-) he iiiiist be a person with NiqntAll Retardation as defined in 115 CIVIR defined , Af, e' In need-ofsp eiali,4ed. supports in three or mote b e ,follo' rig

cation, self-car home livini4 co lin use,There iS no dispute,

' h, fitiVvEVe'r; ,,,,,

a :4,1i.e Is tltetlt2.01.

retarded person `Is; a,person who, as

131411.te°,4‘iit hiss

9pstStent with' $ "' tOs'e*.0141aii."dttai°O...'ofeiital etarcjatiOiiA4i dards

ether',an rn^u hasIS

c: sub tiV

Ore. in fei4,e,„„io, ,.. —, 11.. . ,„ops'm o 'or more o d,' O 10 'a

hop, self toe' living, 80041 ,81011s, eOnnionfines distil* andWOrklnSt exist f

v,intellietual 4rOing; andthe individual must have diardieSt'agO'of .i...

tarderastitat terinis used, 'n statute andfor D SUPPOrts.:' „Plated

ill areas, u ',avera

scores•efore the age of 18 were 70 to 75 or below. His 1Qof age was 101, his TO score in 1990.when he , WaS,6

scOrew eri he was 9 yearS' of age was 77. While there was ascores flOm age . 5 to age 9, none•of the Scores come within

itiOn. It aPpearS.,:rinin ,the • evidence that the Aopelhi.htevelo e oure out ag 8 .or and that'iliis COnditiOn hisaffeeteit

tOperforin on e onnancePOrtion of Subsequent IQ tests. `lbedocuments inenee.exPlain:tli4t the Appellants tics interfered with his ability to,perform on the

timed tests therebYlOWdring hiS. Scores. s expert 'witness. agreed With thisexPlanation. The testing that was done in 2003 when the Appellant was 19 years of age'611.OwS: the same trendtoward rower scores in the PerfOrmante domain: While hisVerbal:IQ score on that.test is in the low average range, his Performance IQ scoredeelinetho the borderline,range. Other reasons for the decline in the Appellant's scoreswere suggested in t holOgieal rvorts as well as by Dr. Parry in her testimony. The•reeiSOriS

Iand the effeets of medications' that the Appellant was taking

7. ,

the time .of testing.

ee

epee

irection, healthtb

e criteria (a)

one of the A e ant's:1score in 19J89' where 11e waears of age wasecline inthe;./kAppellant's