O.H. v. AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
20-0690
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Nov 24, 2021Background
- O.H., a minor in DCF custody, applied to the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD) for Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) as intellectually disabled; APD denied eligibility.
- At administrative hearing, four full-scale IQ scores were in the record: 64 (Stanford-Binet, 2015), 69 (WISC‑V, 2018, school evaluator), 70 (WISC‑V, 2019), and 72 (C‑TONI‑2, 2018, Agency evaluator).
- Hearing officer gave greatest weight to the 72 C‑TONI‑2 score, discounted the lower scores due to behavioral interference or subscore variability, and found O.H. met adaptive‑functioning deficits but not significantly subaverage intellectual functioning.
- O.H. appealed, arguing (1) Hall v. Florida requires accounting for an IQ test’s standard error of measurement (SEM) and permits other evidence when scores fall within the SEM, (2) APD/rules were unconstitutional as applied, (3) the officer failed to apply “closer scrutiny” when scores varied, and (4) ruling lacked competent substantial evidence.
- The appellate majority affirmed: Hall (an Eighth Amendment death‑penalty case) does not extend to social‑benefits eligibility; the hearing officer applied closer scrutiny by reviewing records and testimony; and the findings were supported by competent substantial evidence.
- Dissent argued the officer improperly relied on a non‑preferred test (C‑TONI‑2) that did not comply with rule requirements (no SEM/confidence interval or published validity data) and therefore the decision lacked competent substantial evidence and failed required closer scrutiny.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hall v. Florida requires accounting for SEM or allows additional evidence in benefit eligibility determinations | Hall’s rule on SEM should apply here; a score within SEM (e.g., 72) requires consideration of adaptive deficits and other evidence | Hall is an Eighth Amendment death‑penalty precedent and should not be extended to social‑benefit eligibility; Legislature may adopt such changes | Majority: Hall does not apply; court declines to extend Hall to HCBS eligibility determinations |
| Whether the hearing officer applied the Administrative Code’s “closer scrutiny” when IQ scores varied | Officer failed to perform closer scrutiny and improperly relied on a single non‑preferred test result | Officer and majority point to testimony and records reviewed (school records, IEP, medication, witnesses) showing closer scrutiny occurred | Majority: Closer scrutiny was applied; record contains school/medical/IEP evidence considered by the officer |
| Whether the Final Order is supported by competent substantial evidence (including weight given to tests and credibility) | Officer erred by crediting non‑preferred C‑TONI‑2 that lacked published reliability/SEM and by discrediting multiple preferred tests reporting ≤70 | Officer permissibly credited Dr. Archer’s evaluation, found reliability issues with other tests (behavioral interference, subscore variability), and made credibility determinations | Majority: Findings are supported by competent substantial evidence; appellate court will not reweigh credibility; decision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014) (IQ SEM and consideration of adaptive deficits required in death‑penalty intellectual‑disability determinations)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (execution of intellectually disabled persons violates Eighth Amendment)
- G.R. v. Agency for Perss. with Disabilities, 315 So. 3d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (standard of review for agency eligibility decisions)
- J.J. v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities, 174 So. 3d 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (agency applied closer scrutiny where expert addressed additional facts)
- De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1957) (definition of competent substantial evidence)
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976) (appellate courts do not reweigh credibility of witnesses)