Case Number 2017070552 Modified Document for Accessibility · 2020-04-23 · education classroom...
Transcript of Case Number 2017070552 Modified Document for Accessibility · 2020-04-23 · education classroom...
BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Eligibility of: CLAIMANT, and INLAND REGIONAL CENTER, Service Agency.
OAH No. 2017070552
DECISION
Theresa M. Brehl, Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings,
State of California, heard this matter in San Bernardino, California, on October 24, 2017.
Claimant’s mother and father represented claimant.
Leigh-Ann Pierce, Program Manager, represented the Inland Regional Center
(IRC).
The matter was submitted on October 24, 2017.
ISSUE
Is claimant eligible for regional center services under the Lanterman
Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Lanterman Act) as a result of a disabling
condition found to be closely related to an intellectual disability or to require treatment
similar to that required for individuals with an intellectual disability (the “fifth category”)
that constitutes a substantial disability?
Accessibility modified document
2
FACTUAL FINDINGS
JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS
1. On June 15, 2017, IRC notified claimant that he was not eligible for
regional center services.
2. On July 5, 2017, claimant’s mother filed a fair hearing request, appealing
IRC’s decision. In the request, claimant’s mother stated the following reasons claimant
sought a fair hearing:
[Claimant] was determined to be “ineligible” for RC services.
[Claimant] has Spina Bifida and has a “substantial disability”.
He has no mobility, self-care, learning disabilities, capacity
for independent living, self-direction, etc.
Claimant’s mother also described in the request what claimant needed to resolve
his complaint:
Regional Center eligibility under “substantial or
developmental” disability. His condition requires care similar
to a person w/ CP or Autism.
BACKGROUND
3. Claimant is a seven-year-old boy. Claimant was an Early Start client of the
Regional Center of Orange County (RCOC) due to speech delay. RCOC determined
claimant was not substantially disabled due to a developmental disability in June of
2013, and RCOC did not provide claimant any further regional center services after his
third birthday.
4. Claimant was born with Spina Bifida Myelomeningocele located between
vertebrae L2 and S1. He also has hydrocephalous. He had back closure surgery on day
Accessibility modified document
3
two, and he has undergone 12 additional surgeries since then to treat a variety of
neurological, urologic, and orthopedic conditions.
5. There is no dispute that claimant suffers from a disabling condition. He is
unable to urinate without a catheter or to pass bowels without a complete enema. He
cannot get in or out of a shower, brush his teeth, or wash his hair without assistance. He
is in a wheel chair full-time, as he cannot walk. He crawls as his primary movement
mechanism inside his home, and he cannot stand on his own. He cannot do things that
most children his age are able to do for themselves, such as get his own snacks or
cereal, bathe himself, or brush his teeth. He has an individualized education plan (IEP),
he attends school in a special education classroom, and he receives speech and
language therapy through his school. Claimant’s parents have been told by claimant’s
doctor that it is unknown whether claimant will ever be able to live independently.
6. Claimant’s mother previously wanted her son to be enrolled in a general
education classroom, but she eventually agreed that he should be in a special education
classroom. Claimant is currently in second grade at a year-round school. He began
attending school in a special education classroom during the summer of 2017. Before
then, he had been receiving language and speech services, but he was in a general
education classroom with assistance. He has problems with retention of learned
material. Mathematics is an area of strength and his reading abilities are varied.
7. Claimant’s May 19, 2016, and May 16, 2017, IEPs list claimant’s primary
disability as “Orthopedic Impairment,” and his secondary disability as “Speech or
Language Impairment.” The IEPs also describe how claimant’s disability affects his
progress in the general curriculum as follows:
[Claimant] has delayed mobility due to Spina Bifida. Per
speech and language evaluation, [claimant] also
demonstrates delay in the area of phonology/articulation.
Accessibility modified document
4
These phonological processes negatively affects [sic]
[claimant’s] speech intelligibility which may affect his
participation during group activities and discussion in class.
8. Both parties referenced the IEP Team Meeting Comments in claimant’s
May 2017 IEP during the hearing, which included the following:
Parent had requested a psycho-educational evaluation for
[claimant]. School psychologist reviewed the results of the
evaluation. [Claimant] is a student diagnosed with Spina
Bifida. He has difficulty with motor skills due to paralysis.
[Claimant] requires urinary catheter every four hours and
requires the use of a wheelchair for mobility. [Claimant]
continues to qualify for special education services as a
student with Orthopedically Impaired (OI) and Other Health
Impairment (OHI). [Claimant] continues to receive services
for Adapted PE (APE), Speech and Language (SLI) and
Physical Therapy (PT). [Claimant] does not meet the criteria
for a student with a specific learning disability (SLD), but
[claimant] demonstrates learning weaknesses due to his
other disabilities.
[¶] . . . [¶]
General education teacher shared some of [claimant’s] work
samples with parent. [Claimant] is a great student in class.
[Claimant] has a hard time moving up in a reading level.
[Claimant] has a great memory and can grasp auditory
Accessibility modified document
5
information, but he struggles when the task turns to visual
reading. Teacher also shared that [claimant] struggles to
retain information from day to day. School psychologist
shared that research supports that students with Spina Bifida
have more difficulty with memory and recall.
SANDRA BROOKS, PH.D.’S EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY
9. Sandra Brooks, Ph.D., holds a doctorate in psychology and is a clinical
psychologist licensed to practice in California. She has worked as a staff psychologist for
IRC for the past 10 and a half years, assessing the eligibility of claimants for regional
center services. In her position, she evaluates whether persons are eligible for services
based on autism, intellectual disability, and/or the fifth category. If a person asserts he is
eligible due to Cerebral Palsy or Epilepsy, a medical doctor evaluates whether he or she
is eligible. Dr. Brooks has limited knowledge regarding Spina Bifida. She understands
that some children with Spina Bifida have learning difficulties.
10. Dr. Brooks explained that children under three years of age with delays in
certain areas may be eligible for a regional center’s Early Start Program. Once a child in
the Early Start Program reaches three years of age, he or she may not continue to
receive regional center services unless he or she is eligible under the Lanterman Act.
11. Dr. Brooks opined that claimant is not eligible for regional center services.
Dr. Brooks based her opinion on her review of all the documents that were received in
evidence in this matter, including claimant’s IEPs and the psychoeducational evaluations
that were conducted in 2013 and 2017. Dr. Brooks would not diagnose claimant as
suffering from intellectual disability nor would she find claimant to be eligible under the
fifth category based on the cognitive test results contained in the records she reviewed.
Dr. Brooks explained that it was not necessary for IRC to conduct additional cognitive
testing, as there was enough recent information regarding claimant’s cognitive
Accessibility modified document
6
functioning in the records she reviewed to conclude that he is not eligible for regional
center services at this time.
12. When reviewing the documents, Dr. Brooks looked at claimant’s standard
scores for cognitive and adaptive functioning to determine claimant’s eligibility for
regional center services. In order for a person to be considered as intellectually disabled,
Dr. Brooks would need to see standard scores below 70. To be considered in the fifth
category, the scores would typically need to be from 70 to 75, in the borderline
functioning range. The farther standard scores are above 70, the less likely a person
would be considered to be in the fifth category. Additionally, when diagnosing children,
it is important that the scores show some stability over time, as it is not unusual for
children to show fluctuations in cognitive functioning. Therefore, children are typically
not diagnosed as being in the fifth category. In this case, Dr. Brooks did not see a
consistent pattern of borderline scores that would support diagnosing claimant as
falling within the fifth category.
13. When Dr. Brooks was asked questions about whether claimant would need
treatment similar to what a person with an intellectual disability would need, she
struggled because there is “no treatment for intellectual disability” as it is not curable
and because it is unusual to diagnosis a child as falling within the fifth category. She did
note that such treatment might include job training or coaching for an adult or
specialized education in school for a child. Dr. Brooks stressed that although someone
may suffer from substantial disabilities, those disabilities must stem from a diagnosis of
Cerebral Palsy, Epilepsy, autism, intellectual disability, or the fifth category for the person
to be eligible for regional center services. She gave as an example that even though a
person may suffer from a substantially disabling condition as the result of an accident,
that person would not be eligible for regional center services.
Accessibility modified document
7
14. During her testimony, Dr. Brooks discussed claimant’s cognitive and
adaptive standard scores, and some of his other test and scale results, and she explained
why she did not believe those scores supported eligibility for regional center services
based on intellectual disability or the fifth category.
The 2013 Developmental Profile Third Edition Scores The Regional Center of Orange County Relied Upon in 2013
15. According to regional center transfer documents sent to IRC from the
RCOC, during 2013, when claimant was approaching three years of age, RCOC evaluated
claimant and determined he was not eligible for regional center services under the
Lanterman Act. A Developmental Profile Third Edition (DP-3) was conducted by Gerald
D. Alpern, Ph.D., on April 18, 2013, when claimant was two years and four months old. At
that time, claimant’s DP-3 standard scores were:
Physical 57 Delayed
Adaptive Behavior 93 Average
Social-Emotional 85 Average
Cognitive 100 Average
Communication 88 Average
General Development 79 Below Average
Dr. Brooks explained that the DP-3 is used to determine development compared
to persons of similar age. In order to evaluate whether claimant suffers from intellectual
disability or the fifth category, Dr. Brooks considered claimant’s 2013 DP-3 cognitive and
adaptive scores. Dr. Alpern’s 2013 report provided the following interpretations of
claimant’s standard scores on the cognitive and adaptive behavior scales:
Accessibility modified document
8
Adaptive Behavior scale. On the Adaptive Behavior scale,
[claimant] obtained a standard score of 93, which is
considered to be Average. This scale measures an individual’s
age-appropriate independent functioning, which includes
the ability to use current technology. [Claimant’s] score
indicates that he has average abilities related to acquisition
of adaptive behavior skills. He likely has specific areas of
strength and weakness within the adaptive behavior realm,
but in general is functioning at an adequate developmental
level.
[¶] . . . [¶]
Cognitive scale. [Claimant] obtained a standard score of 100
on the Cognitive scale, which measures perception, concept
development, number relations, reasoning, memory,
classification, time concepts, and related mental acuity tasks
as reported by [claimant’s mother]. His score is seen as
Average, which implies that [claimant’s] cognitive skills are at
the expected level for his age.
According to Dr. Brooks, because claimant’s 2013 DP-3 scores in the cognitive
and adaptive behavior categories were in the average range, those scores did not
support a diagnosis of intellectual disability or placement in the fifth category.
Accessibility modified document
9
Cognitive Scores in the May 30, 2013, Multidisciplinary Psychoeducational Assessment Report
16. Also during 2013, when claimant was two years and eleven months old, a
battery of tools was used by a multidisciplinary team of the Fullerton School District to
evaluate him.
The Differential Abilities Scales II (DAS-II), which is designed to assess cognitive
abilities of children, was used to assess claimant. Claimant’s standard scores were 87 for
verbal, 91 for nonverbal reasoning, and 88 for global conceptual ability. All those scores
were in the low average range. The report summarized the findings regarding claimant’s
cognitive functioning as follows:
[Claimant’s] general cognitive ability is within the low
average range of intellectual functioning. His overall thinking
and reasoning abilities exceed those of approximately 21 %
of children his age (GCA = 88). [Claimant’s] verbal
functioning in receptive language falls within the average
range (TS = 47); his expressive verbal score is within the low
average range (TS = 37). [Claimant’s] nonverbal reasoning
skills are within the average range (SS = 91). [Claimant] was
able to follow simple verbal directions; he was at times
resistant to identifying pictures and naming objects that his
mother said he normally names. He has no trouble matching
pictures based on concrete and abstract relationships, and
he followed directions to construct some simple patterns
with blocks.
Claimant’s pre-academic skills were measured using the Brigance Diagnostic
Inventory of Early Development II. His “General knowledge/Pre-Academics” standard
Accessibility modified document
10
score was 92, and his pre-academic skills “were found to be in the average range”; his
total fine motor skills standard score was 94, in the average range; his gross motor skills
standard score was 60, in the mild deficit range; his self-help standard score was 86, in
the low average range; and his social emotional standard score was 89, in the low
average range. Claimant’s functional pre-academic skills, as measured by the Adaptive
Behavior Assessment System II (based on the parent’s report) was a scaled score of 7,
which was in the low average range.
According to Dr. Brooks, these standard and scaled scores did not support an
intellectual disability or fifth category diagnosis.
May 16, 2017, Corona-Norco Psychoeducational Report
17. In 2017, at his parents’ request, the Corona-Norco Unified School District
referred claimant, who was then six years and ten months old, for a psychoeducational
evaluation. The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II), was
used to evaluate claimant’s cognitive functioning. Claimant’s standard scores were as
follows:
Fluid-Crystalized Index (FCI) 80 Below Average
Non-Verbal Index 89 Below Average
Sequential Processing 71 Well Below Average
Learning Ability 86 Below Average
Simultaneous Processing 94 Average
Knowledge 96 Average
Dr. Brooks explained that claimant’s overall KABC II score was in the low average
range, with his greatest weakness in the sequential processing category. In her opinion,
his scores were not similar to scores she might see from to someone with an intellectual
disability.
Accessibility modified document
11
On the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children – Second Edition – Non-Verbal
(KABC-II Non Verbal), which is a measure of cognitive functioning, claimant’s nonverbal
index score was 89. Dr. Brooks described this score as in the high end of the low average
range.
The Woodcock-Johnson IV Test of Achievement was also administered. Dr.
Brooks described claimant’s results as “scattered,” because claimant had standard scores
measuring various reading skills ranging from the mid-50s through the mid-80s, while
he had mathematics scores in the 80s and 90s. Dr. Brooks stressed that this tool was
testing claimant’s achievement, which she differentiated from testing his cognitive
functioning.
Based on claimant’s 2017 scores, Dr. Brooks did not consider claimant to be like
someone with an intellectual disability and she would not place him in the fifth category.
CLAIMANT’S PARENTS’ TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENTS
18. Claimant’s parents want to obtain all the resources that are available to
help their son. They are particularly concerned about his ability to care for himself and
to retain information he learns in school, as he suffers from problems remembering
things he has learned. They do not believe claimant suffers from Cerebral Palsy, Epilepsy,
autism, or intellectual disability. However, they believe he should receive regional center
services under the fifth category because claimant needs treatment that is similar to
treatment received by persons with an intellectual disability.
Claimant’s parents prepared a chart of medical treatments, similar to the care
their son needs, which they understand may be given to persons with intellectual
disabilities based on an article titled Medical Care of Adults with Mental Retardation,
Christopher D. Prater, M.D., and Richard G. Zylstra, ED.D., L.C.S.W. The article was
Accessibility modified document
12
published at www.aafp.org.1 The chart claimant’s parents prepared listed the following
medical disorders and the treatments for those disorders which are similar to treatments
claimant has received:
1 Claimant’s parents did not supply the article, but they testified about it and
presented the chart they made based on information they read in it.
Disorder Medical Phenotypic Expression
Cerebral Palsy Urinary: Incontinence
Neuromusculoskeletal: chronic pain
(lumbosacral, hip, leg), muscle spasticity,
seizures, osteoporosis, scoliosis
Cri du chat syndrome Orthopedic: scoliosis
Down syndrome Dermatologic: seborrheic dermatitis of scalp
and face, eczema of hands and feet, tinea
infections including onychomycosis
Ophthalmic: strabismus, cataracts, decreased
visual acuity
Orthopedic: Atlantoaxial instability, patellar
subluxation, hip disease, osteoporosis
Rett syndrome Gastrointestinal: drooling, GERD, swallowing
difficulties, constipation with functional
megacolon, gallbladder dysfunction
Tuberous sclerosis Neurologic: seizures, obstructive hydrocephalus
Claimant’s parents argued that because claimant suffers from substantial
disabilities due to his Spina Bifida and he requires treatment similar to treatment that
Accessibility modified document
13
persons with intellectual disabilities may also require, that he should be found eligible
for regional center services under the fifth category.
LEGAL CONCLUSIONS
BURDEN OF PROOF
1. In a proceeding to determine regional center eligibility, the burden of
proof is on the claimant to establish he or she meets the proper criteria. The standard is
a preponderance of the evidence. (Evid. Code, §§ 115 and 500.)
2. “‘Preponderance of the evidence means evidence that has more
convincing force than that opposed to it.’ [Citations.]” (Glage v. Hawes Firearms
Company (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 314, 324-325.) “The sole focus of the legal definition of
‘preponderance’ in the phrase ‘preponderance of the evidence’ is on the quality of the
evidence. The quantity of the evidence presented by each side is irrelevant.” (Ibid.) “If
the evidence is so evenly balanced that you are unable to say that the evidence on
either side of an issue preponderates, your finding on that issue must be against the
party who had the burden of proving it [citation].” (People v. Mabini (2001) 92
Cal.App.4th 654, 663.)
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
3. The Lanterman Act is set forth at Welfare and Institutions Code section
4500 et seq.
4. Welfare and Institutions Code section 4501 states:
The State of California accepts a responsibility for persons
with developmental disabilities and an obligation to them
which it must discharge. Affecting hundreds of thousands of
children and adults directly, and having an important impact
Accessibility modified document
14
on the lives of their families, neighbors, and whole
communities, developmental disabilities present social,
medical, economic, and legal problems of extreme
importance.
[¶] . . . [¶]
An array of services and supports should be established
which is sufficiently complete to meet the needs and choices
of each person with developmental disabilities, regardless of
age or degree of disability, and at each stage of life and to
support their integration into the mainstream life of the
community. To the maximum extent feasible, services and
supports should be available throughout the state to prevent
the dislocation of persons with developmental disabilities
from their home communities. . . .
5. Welfare and Institutions Code section 4512, subdivision (a), defines
“developmental disability” as follows:
“Developmental disability” means a disability that originates
before an individual attains 18 years of age; continues, or can
be expected to continue, indefinitely; and constitutes a
substantial disability for that individual. As defined by the
Director of Developmental Services, in consultation with the
Superintendent of Public Instruction, this term shall include
intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism.
This term shall also include disabling conditions found to be
closely related to intellectual disability or to require
Accessibility modified document
15
treatment similar to that required for individuals with an
intellectual disability, but shall not include other
handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature.
6. California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 54000,2 provides:
2 The regulation still uses the former term “mental retardation” instead of
“intellectual disability.”
(a) “Developmental Disability” means a disability that is
attributable to mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy,
autism, or disabling conditions found to be closely related to
mental retardation or to require treatment similar to that
required for individuals with mental retardation.
(b) The Developmental Disability shall:
(1) Originate before age eighteen;
(2) Be likely to continue indefinitely;
(3) Constitute a substantial disability for the individual as
defined in the article.
(c) Developmental Disability shall not include handicapping
conditions that are:
(1) Solely psychiatric disorders where there is impaired
intellectual or social functioning which originated as a result
Accessibility modified document
16
of the psychiatric disorder or treatment given for such a
disorder. Such psychiatric disorders include psycho-social
deprivation and/or psychosis, severe neurosis or personality
disorders even where social and intellectual functioning have
become seriously impaired as an integral manifestation of
the disorder.
(2) Solely learning disabilities. A learning disability is a
condition which manifests as a significant discrepancy
between estimated cognitive potential and actual level of
educational performance and which is not a result of
generalized mental retardation, educational or psycho-social
deprivation, psychiatric disorder, or sensory loss.
(3) Solely physical in nature. These conditions include
congenital anomalies or conditions acquired through
disease, accident, or faulty development which are not
associated with a neurological impairment that results in a
need for treatment similar to that required for mental
retardation.
7. California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 54001, provides:
(a) “Substantial disability” means:
(1) A condition which results in major impairment of
cognitive and/or social functioning, representing sufficient
impairment to require interdisciplinary planning and
Accessibility modified document
17
coordination of special or generic services to assist the
individual in achieving maximum potential; and
(2) The existence of significant functional limitations, as
determined by the regional center, in three or more of the
following areas of major life activity, as appropriate to the
person’s age:
(A) Receptive and expressive language;
(B) Learning;
(C) Self-care;
(D) Mobility;
(E) Self-direction;
(F) Capacity for independent living;
(G) Economic self-sufficiency.
(b) The assessment of substantial disability shall be made by
a group of Regional Center professionals of differing
disciplines and shall include consideration of similar
qualification appraisals performed by other interdisciplinary
bodies of the Department serving the potential client. The
group shall include as a minimum a program coordinator, a
physician, and a psychologist.
(c) The Regional Center professional group shall consult the
potential client, parents, guardians/conservators, educators,
advocates, and other client representatives to the extent that
they are willing and available to participate in its
Accessibility modified document
18
deliberations and to the extent that the appropriate consent
is obtained.
(d) Any reassessment of substantial disability for purposes of
continuing eligibility shall utilize the same criteria under
which the individual was originally made eligible.
8. Welfare and Institutions Code section 4642, subdivision (a), requires a
regional center to perform initial intake and assessment services for “any person
believed to have a developmental disability.” Welfare and Institutions Code section
4643, subdivisions (a) and (b), provide the following regarding assessment services:
(a) If assessment is needed, the assessment shall be
performed within 120 days following initial intake.
Assessment shall be performed as soon as possible and in no
event more than 60 days following initial intake where any
delay would expose the client to unnecessary risk to his or
her health and safety or to significant further delay in mental
or physical development, or the client would be at imminent
risk of placement in a more restrictive environment.
Assessment may include collection and review of available
historical diagnostic data, provision or procurement of
necessary tests and evaluations, and summarization of
developmental levels and service needs and is conditional
upon receipt of the release of information specified in
subdivision (b).
Accessibility modified document
19
(b) In determining if an individual meets the definition of
developmental disability contained in subdivision (a) of
Section 4512, the regional center may consider evaluations
and tests, including, but not limited to, intelligence tests,
adaptive functioning tests, neurological and
neuropsychological tests, diagnostic tests performed by a
physician, psychiatric tests, and other tests or evaluations
that have been performed by, and are available from, other
sources.
APPLICABLE CASE LAW
9. In Mason v. Office of Administrative Hearings (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1119,
1127, the Fourth District Court of Appeal discussed the language in the Lanterman Act
regarding the fifth category, and determined the language was not impermissibly vague.
The appellate court explained that finding as follows (Ibid. at pp. 1128-1130.):
In the instant case, the terms “closely related to” and “similar
treatment” are general, somewhat imprecise terms. However,
section 4512(a) does not exist, and we do not apply it, in
isolation. “[W]here the language of a statute fails to provide
an objective standard by which conduct can be judged, the
required specificity may nonetheless be provided by the
common knowledge and understanding of members of the
particular vocation or profession to which the statute
applies.” [Footnote omitted.] Here, the Lanterman Act and
implementing regulations clearly defer to the expertise of
the DDS and RC professionals and their determination as to
Accessibility modified document
20
whether an individual is developmentally disabled. General,
as well as specific guidelines are provided in the Lanterman
Act and regulations to assist such RC professionals in making
this difficult, complex determination. Some degree of
generality and, hence, vagueness is thus tolerable.
The language defining the fifth category does not allow such
subjectivity and unbridled discretion as to render section
4512 impermissibly vague. The fifth category condition must
be very similar to mental retardation, with many of the same,
or close to the same, factors required in classifying a person
as mentally retarded. Furthermore, the various additional
factors required in designating an individual developmentally
disabled and substantially handicapped must apply as well.
While there is some subjectivity involved in determining
whether the condition is substantially similar to mental
retardation and requires similar treatment, it is not enough
to render the statute unconstitutionally vague, particularly
when developmentally [sic] disabilities are widely differing
and difficult to define with precision. Section 4512 and the
implementing regulations prescribe an adequate standard or
policy directive for the guidance of the RCs in their
determinations of eligibility for services.
EVALUATION
10. The Lanterman Act and the applicable regulations set forth criteria that a
claimant must meet to qualify for regional center services. There is no question that
Accessibility modified document
21
claimant suffers from significant disabilities as a result of his medical condition, Spina
Bifida. However, as is set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code section 4512, subdivision
(a), and California Code of Regulations, title 17 section 54000, subdivision (c)(3), a
developmental disability “shall not include handicapping conditions” which are “solely
physical in nature,” including “congenital anomalies or conditions acquired through
disease, accident, or faulty development which are not associated with a neurological
impairment that results in a need for treatment similar to that required for” intellectual
disability.
11. The evidence introduced in this hearing was not sufficient to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that claimant’s disabilities are a result of him suffering
from an intellectual disability or meeting the criteria for eligibility under the fifth
category. IRC properly considered RCOC’s prior 2013 assessment and the evaluations
and tests conducted by the school districts in 2013 and 2017. Additional intelligence
testing was not warranted, as it was appropriate for IRC to rely on the recent cognitive
testing performed by the school district during 2017, which resulted in scores that were
consistent with the testing performed in 2013. Because the evidence failed to
demonstrate claimant suffers from an intellectual disability or a condition that would
place him in the fifth category, claimant is not eligible to receive regional center services
at this time. Thus, his appeal from IRC’s determination that he is ineligible to receive
regional center services must be denied.
ORDER
1. Claimant is ineligible for regional center services and supports under the
Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act.
//
2. Claimant’s appeal from Inland Regional Center’s determination that he is
not eligible for regional center services and supports is denied.
Accessibility modified document
22
DATED: November 1, 2017
__________________________
THERESA M. BREHL
Administrative Law Judge
Office of Administrative Hearings
NOTICE
This is the final administrative decision. Both parties are bound by this decision.
Either party may appeal this decision to a court of competent jurisdiction within ninety
days.
Accessibility modified document