Benjamin v. Dept. of Developmental Services
AC44025
| Conn. App. Ct. | Nov 2, 2021Background
- Denise F. applied to the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) in 2018 for services for her son Benjamin, citing intellectual disability and autism; DDS initially found him ineligible and Denise requested a formal hearing.
- Hearing officer concluded Benjamin was eligible, relying on a 2016 cognitive assessment (WAIS‑IV full‑scale IQ 65), other testing showing very low adaptive skills, and consistency with later testing.
- Commissioner reviewed the record, deleted some hearing‑officer findings, and issued a final decision denying eligibility under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1‑1g, applying Christopher R. and emphasizing the totality of test scores (including higher earlier scores).
- Plaintiffs appealed to Superior Court, which affirmed the commissioner as supported by substantial evidence and declined to take judicial notice of Probate Court documents or apply judicial estoppel.
- Appellants appealed; the Appellate Court affirmed, holding (inter alia) that § 1‑1g (as amended) permits consideration of multiple tests, the commissioner considered the 2016 report, judicial notice/remand procedures were not followed, and the final decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2012 amendment to § 1‑1g forbids considering multiple intelligence tests when one full‑scale IQ <70 | Amendment removed "one or more" and thus an applicant with a single full‑scale IQ <70 must be deemed eligible | The statute still contemplates multiple "tests"; Christopher R.'s reasoning (common sense, totality) remains controlling | Commissioner may consider multiple tests; Christopher R. remains good law |
| Whether the commissioner was required to analyze every full‑scale IQ (specifically the 2016 score) | Commissioner failed to consider Benjamin’s 2016 full‑scale IQ (65) in violation of § 1‑1g | Commissioner considered the 2016 assessment and its subtests and circumstances even if wording was altered in the final decision | Commissioner did consider and appropriately weighed the 2016 assessment; substantial evidence supports that consideration |
| Whether Superior Court should have taken judicial notice of Probate Court records / applied judicial estoppel | Probate filings (DDS assessment team statements) show DDS previously acknowledged Benjamin meets § 1‑1g, so DDS is estopped from denying eligibility | Plaintiffs failed to use § 4‑183(h) remand procedure; judicial notice would force the court to weigh facts outside the administrative record, violating § 4‑183(j) | Court properly refused judicial notice and declined to apply judicial estoppel absent use of the statutory remand procedure |
| Whether the commissioner’s final decision was supported by substantial evidence | Reliance on older higher scores (2010, 2013) and certain findings were arbitrary/insufficient; remand required | Record contains multiple evaluations, subtest analysis, and explanations for variability; commissioner permissibly weighed evidence | Final decision is supported by substantial evidence; misstatements (e.g., about 2010 basis) were not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Christopher R. v. Commissioner of Mental Retardation, 277 Conn. 594 (2006) (agency may consider multiple intelligence tests, subtest/profile evidence, and totality when scores conflict)
- Brennan v. Waterbury, 331 Conn. 672 (2019) (plenary review appropriate when statutory provision or agency interpretation has not been time‑tested)
- State v. Brown, 310 Conn. 693 (2013) (§ 1‑1(f) is directory; singular/plural forms are not automatically interchangeable)
- Blinkoff v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 129 Conn. App. 714 (2011) (Superior Court review of agency decisions is generally confined to the administrative record; judicial notice of extra‑record documents is limited)
- Costello v. Commissioner of Developmental Services, 128 Conn. App. 286 (2011) (appellate standard: agency findings sustained if supported by substantial evidence in the record)