(Cross-posted from The COFAR Blog)
In what has the potential to be a big win for people with intellectual disabilities who have been denied services from the state, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals has invalidated state regulations cutting off eligibility if a person scores above a 70 on an IQ test.
The three-judge appeals court panel overturned a ruling by Superior Court Judge Kimberly S. Budd, which had upheld the regulations, which DDS adopted in 2006.
The case against the regulations was argued by Thomas Frain, an attorney who is also president of COFAR.
In its July 23 decision, the appeals court ordered DDS to redraft the regulations to conform to a state law that requires the department’s definition of intellectual disability to be based on “clinical authorities” and not solely on an arbitrary IQ score measurement.
The case concerns a woman who scored a 71 on an IQ test when she was 18, and who was subsequently denied services by DDS on that basis. Frain, who represented the woman, said he believes the appeals court ruling could have far-reaching implications for eligibility for DDS services. He maintained that since 2006, “the message from DDS has been ‘don’t bother to apply if you score above a 70.'”
An undetermined number of people have been denied DDS services since 2006 as a result of the absolute cut-off above a 70 IQ score. Frain said he believes the ruling “could trigger a flood of re-applications for benefits.”
The appeals court ruling has been hailed by a range of advocacy groups for the disabled, including the Disability Law Center and the Arc of Massachusetts. Those organizations along with COFAR opposed the 2006 regulations before they took effect, arguing that they would give the department wide latitude to deny eligibility to persons who were clearly in need of services.
Frain described his client, who is now 45, as “a very disabled person” who lives with her mother and depends on her for many basic living functions. The woman’s mother, who is 72, said she has to cook for her daughter, take her to medical appointments, handle her finances, and supervise her medication. “She doesn’t function as an adult,” she said of her daughter.
The appeals court ruling stated that there was also evidence the woman “may have placed herself at risk in her dealings with strangers,” and that she has “an ill-defined sense of sexual boundaries.”
The Globe reported that state officials maintain that their evaluation criteria go “far beyond IQ test results” to include how well individuals function in society. The newspaper said the woman in this case had graduated from high school and had attended Middlesex Community College.
The woman’s mother told me, however, that her daughter graduated from a small parochial school after having been “pushed through” by the administration there, and that she took only a clerical course for people with intellectual disabilities at Middlesex Community College.
The woman scored 71 on an IQ test at age 18, 69 at age 40, and 71 at age 42. The appeals court stated that DDS determined that the woman’s score at age 18 was “determinative” and that a standard error of measurement of plus or minus 5 points should not be applied “in view of (the woman’s) education and work history.” Moreover, DDS determined that it was not necessary to consider the woman’s adaptive functioning because she had scored above the cutoff of score of 70.
Prior to 2006, DDS regulations stated that determinations of intellectual disability had to be consistent with the clinical authority of the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disability (AAIDD). The AAIDD definition of intellectual disability does not establish an absolute cut-off at an IQ of 70.
The appeals court ruled that DDS’s prior regulations were consistent with a state law, which defines intellectual disability as something that is “determined by clinical authorities.” The court stated that the 2006 regulations, however, “fail to describe the clinical authorities upon which the clinical judgments regarding intelligence are made.”
It was not clear whether DDS would appeal the ruling to the Supreme Judicial Court.
A bill was pending in the Legislature that would tie the definition of intellectual disability in Massachusetts to the AAIDD’s definition. The measure (H. 4252) was passed by the House in its final formal session of the year on Tuesday night, but was not taken up by the Senate.
The Disability Law Center was planning to try to get the bill through the Senate in an upcoming informal session.
During a hearing on the bill last year, a number of people provided emotional testimony about having been denied DDS services for their children who tested just above the 70 cut-off. One woman, Linda Boucher, whose son had scored a 75 and who was consequently denied services, said it was as if he was under house arrest.
“Where do I go? I need help,” Boucher told the lawmakers, her voice cracking with emotion.
Frain said he hopes that the appeals court ruling combined with the pending legislation will ensure that DDS provides services in the near future to intellectually disabled people such as his client and Boucher’s son.
that a state that purports to be as progressive as Massachusetts, would institute draconian rules designed to prevent disabled people from accessing services. It’s embarrassing.
It’s a pity that this family had to go to court, and force the state to conform to its own laws. Of course the definition of intellectual disability should be based on “clinical authorities” rather than solely on I.Q. measurements.
I hope the Governor accepts this decision and does the right thing for people with intellectual disabilities. Although many don’t vote, they do deserve the right to live to their fullest potential.
Thank you, Tom Frain and COFAR, for your labor on behalf of people with intellectual disabilities.
I applaud this family for having the courage and will to force the DDS to comply with the law and perhaps paving the way for many others who need but have been denied services. Kudo’s to legal counsel.
As far as the Governor doing the right thing–I for one won’t hold my breath.
I agree with the first two posts about a long, arduous struggle by this family, with great counsel. However, it is stunning to me that in 2012 we still need to fight to protect and care for our most vulnerable neighbors. This family in fact appears to have been “punished” by DDS because they sought and encouraged their intellectually disabled daughter to go to school and participate in training initiatives. Aren’t these opportunities what we look to do within our communities? This family has done a great service to their duaghter, but also to the community of folks with intellectual disabilities. Thanks to Tom Frain as well!
that, on the one hand, the administration promotes an ideology that all intellectually disabled persons should be able to “reach their potential” in the community. But when they try to do that, say, by taking a course at a community college, the administration then says they are too educated to receive services.
By the way, I’m sure this woman’s parochial school administrators had the best of intentions in pushing her through the school and graduating her as if she were a normal student there. But they really did her no favors. Her high school diploma was only used against her by DDS in justifying its decision to deny her services.
There is a false assumption that many ideologues in the disability rights field have that all people, no matter what their level of impairment, can function equally well in the community.
Accurate and so well said.
This is excellent news. My congratulations to Tom Frain and to his client. Any hard and fast cut-off involving a tenuous measurement like an I.Q. just doesn’t make sense. Individuals with intellectual disabilities or retardation are already marginalized by our society. The absolute 70 I.Q. further marginalized many people who truly need and deserve services. Advocacy Network, a COFAR affiliate, is pleased with this ruling by the Court of Appeals overruling the DDS regulation.