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.
No comments:
Post a Comment