In re R.R.
210 A.3d 1246
| Vt. | 2019Background
- R.R., diagnosed with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and other conditions, sought Home and Community‑Based Services under Vermont's Developmental Disabilities Act; eligibility requires intellectual disability (IQ ≈ 70 or below plus adaptive deficits).
- R.R. had two contested IQ scores: 75 (2007) and 77 (2015). There was little dispute he had significant adaptive behavior deficits manifested before age 18.
- DAIL/Howard Center denied services based on the 2015 score of 77 and a strict reading of the regulation requiring a full‑scale IQ of 70 or below.
- The Human Services Board found the 2007 score of 75 most reflective of R.R.'s functioning, applied the standard error of measurement (SEM, ±5 points), and reversed the denial.
- The Secretary of Human Services reversed the Board, holding the regulations impose a rigid 70 cutoff and that a current assessment (2015) controlled; R.R. appealed to the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board permissibly relied on the 2007 IQ score instead of the 2015 score | R.R.: Board properly considered both current and prior assessments; 2007 score was more reflective of his functioning and admissible | Secretary/DAIL: Regulations require a current assessment; the 2007 score (older than the general 3‑year guideline for school‑age testing) should be disregarded | Court: Board's finding that 2007 score best reflected functioning is supported by the record; Secretary lacked authority to overturn those factual findings |
| Whether the DD regulations require applying the IQ test standard error of measurement (±5) when assessing eligibility | R.R.: Regulations expressly state diagnosis "takes into account a standard error of measurement"; applying SEM makes a 75 score qualify as meeting the 70 threshold | DAIL/Secretary: The SEM sentence applies only to accommodations for language/motor/hearing disabilities, not to general eligibility; regulations create a fixed 70 cutoff | Court: Plain language requires applying SEM to interpretation of test results; SEM converts 75 into a qualifying range and DAIL's restrictive reading was inconsistent with the rule and arbitrary |
| Whether the Secretary properly reversed the Board as misinterpreting policy/rule | R.R.: Secretary overstepped because Board's findings were supported and his regulatory interpretation was plainly erroneous | Secretary: Reversal appropriate because Board misapplied the regulation and relied on an older score | Court: Secretary erred—Board's factual findings had record support and his contrary interpretation of the regulation was incorrect; reversal vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (recognizes IQ scores have SEM and should be read as ranges rather than fixed numbers)
- Jacobus v. Dep't of PATH, 177 Vt. 496 (Vt. 2004) (deference principles for Secretary’s interpretation of agency statutes/regulations)
- Slocum v. Dep't of Soc. Welfare, 154 Vt. 474 (Vt. 1990) (interpretation of agency regulations must give effect to the regulation as a whole)
- Pratt v. Dep't of Soc. Welfare, 145 Vt. 138 (Vt. 1984) (hearing officer is Board's factfinder; Board adopts hearing officer findings)
- In re Ryan, 184 Vt. 597 (Vt. 2008) (Board's discretion to assess witness credibility and weigh evidence)