SCOVT reverses Secretary’s reversal of Human Services Board’s reversal of Department’s denial of petitioner’s request for developmental disability services , because the Board’s factual findings that had support in the record .

In re R.R., 2019 VT 31  [filed 4/26/2019] SKOGLUND, J. The fundamental issue in this case is whether petitioner should be found eligible for developmental disability services. The Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living (DAIL) denied petitioner’s request for services, finding him ineligible. The Human Services Board reversed DAIL’s decision. The Secretary of the Agency of Human Services reversed the Board’s decision and reinstated DAIL’s decision. This appeal followed. Before us is the question of whether a standard error of measurement is properly applied to IQ scores used to qualify persons for developmental disability services.  The SEM for an IQ test is plus or minus five points. If the SEM is taken into account, then scores at or below 75 would qualify under the regulations as “a full scale score of 70 or below” We conclude that the plain language of the applicable regulations incorporates the standard error of measurement of plus or minus five points for an IQ test and, therefore, petitioner’s IQ score of 75 combined with the other evidence in the case qualified him for services.  The Secretary is limited in reviewing the Board’s factual findings and may “reverse or modify factual findings in a board decision only if ‘the board’s findings of fact lack any support in the record.’”  The Secretary rejected the Board’s finding that the 2007 score was the most reasonable and appropriate basis to determine petitioner’s eligibility,   concluding that there was “no clinical basis in the record” for the finding.  Because the Board’s assessment that petitioner’s 2007 score was the most accurate reflection of his level of functioning is supported by the record, the Secretary lacked authority to reverse or modify it. We conclude that the Secretary lacked authority to reverse the Board’s factual findings and erred in interpreting the regulations. Therefore, we reverse the Secretary’s decision and remand for reinstatement of the Board’s decision Reversed and remanded.