Case: Christopher R. v.
Comm'r. of Mental Retardation
277 Conn. 594 (2006)
Abuse and Neglect, Mental Health :
Connecticut Supreme Court
April 4, 2006
The
Connecticut Supreme Court weighed in on the issue of what criteria
are necessary for determining eligibility for services with the
state Department of Mental Retardation ("DMR"). In an interesting
decision that advocates for the intellectually disabled will surely
decry, the Court rendered a decision strictly construing the eligibility
statute and disallowing the consideration of one intelligence test
that meets the statutory standard of mental retardation ("MR"),
where conflicting evidence and test scores exist.
The
case arose out of a challenge brought by Christopher M., a fifteen
year old minor, by his father, seeking judicial relief from an administrative
hearing decision indicating that Christopher was ineligible for
services pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-1g. The administrative
hearing officer found, inter alia, that only one intelligence tests
out of several that Christopher had taken - the 2002 WISC - III
test - resulted in an IQ score in the range of the statutory definition
of mental retardation; that although the full scale performance
score were in the MR range, it was more likely that the verbal score
was a more accurate reflection of his intellectual level; and that
Christopher had not been diagnosed as MR by any of the mental health
or educational professionals who had evaluated him over the years.
On
appeal to the Superior Court (pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183),
Christopher successfully argued that the hearing officer had he
had submitted a single, properly administered IQ test with a full
scale score of less than seventy, and that his intellectual deficiency
existed concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior. The trial
court found that DMR's preference of the verbal IQ to the general
IQ was inappropriate and that it exceeded the department's legal
authority.
In
a thorough decision, Supreme Court sided with DMR's contention that
it did not abuse its discretion in determining eligibility. Specifically,
the court pulled apart Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-1g and 17a-212 (the
statute directing DMR to promulgate regulations setting forth eligibility
criteria for services). In interpreting the statutes, the court
found that DMR is enabled to consider more than one general intelligence
test to determine whether an applicant is mentally retarded, and
thus eligible for DMR services. In addition, DMR did not exceed
its statutory authority by considering evidence other than IQ test
scores when confronted
with conflicting results. The court went to great lengths to stress
that the legislature intended to clarify and narrow the definition
of mental retardation to ensure that persons with borderline normal
intelligence were not classified as MR, to prevent the inappropriate
commitment of these borderline individuals to institutions and MR
facilities and to ensure that limited resources were devoted to
those most in need. The court then found that based on the record
before it, DMR's decision was supported by substantial evidence,
as it appropriately employed its gate-keeping function to determine
eligibility given its expertise and experience in the field.
1.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-1g provides: ''(a) For the purposes of [various
statutes] mental retardation means a significantly subaverage general
intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in
adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period.
(b) As used in subsection (a), 'general intellectual functioning'
means the results obtained by assessment with one or more of the
individually administered general intelligence tests developed for
that purpose and standardized on a significantly adequate population
and administered by a person or persons formally trained in test
administration; 'significantly subaverage' means an intelligence
quotient more than two standard deviations below the mean for the
test; 'adaptive behavior' means the effectiveness or degree with
which an individual meets the standards of personal independence
and social responsibility expected for the individual's age and
cultural group; and 'developmental period' means the period of time
between birth and the eighteenth birthday.''
