case number 2017070552 modified document for accessibility · 2020-04-23 · education classroom...

BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Eligibility of: CLAIMANT, and INLAND REGIONAL CENTER, Service Agency.

OAH No. 2017070552

DECISION

Theresa M. Brehl, Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings,

State of California, heard this matter in San Bernardino, California, on October 24, 2017.

Claimant’s mother and father represented claimant.

Leigh-Ann Pierce, Program Manager, represented the Inland Regional Center

(IRC).

The matter was submitted on October 24, 2017.

ISSUE

Is claimant eligible for regional center services under the Lanterman

Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Lanterman Act) as a result of a disabling

condition found to be closely related to an intellectual disability or to require treatment

similar to that required for individuals with an intellectual disability (the “fifth category”)

that constitutes a substantial disability?

Accessibility modified document

2

FACTUAL FINDINGS

JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS

1. On June 15, 2017, IRC notified claimant that he was not eligible for

regional center services.

2. On July 5, 2017, claimant’s mother filed a fair hearing request, appealing

IRC’s decision. In the request, claimant’s mother stated the following reasons claimant

sought a fair hearing:

[Claimant] was determined to be “ineligible” for RC services.

[Claimant] has Spina Bifida and has a “substantial disability”.

He has no mobility, self-care, learning disabilities, capacity

for independent living, self-direction, etc.

Claimant’s mother also described in the request what claimant needed to resolve

his complaint:

Regional Center eligibility under “substantial or

developmental” disability. His condition requires care similar

to a person w/ CP or Autism.

BACKGROUND

3. Claimant is a seven-year-old boy. Claimant was an Early Start client of the

Regional Center of Orange County (RCOC) due to speech delay. RCOC determined

claimant was not substantially disabled due to a developmental disability in June of

2013, and RCOC did not provide claimant any further regional center services after his

third birthday.

4. Claimant was born with Spina Bifida Myelomeningocele located between

vertebrae L2 and S1. He also has hydrocephalous. He had back closure surgery on day


3

two, and he has undergone 12 additional surgeries since then to treat a variety of

neurological, urologic, and orthopedic conditions.

5. There is no dispute that claimant suffers from a disabling condition. He is

unable to urinate without a catheter or to pass bowels without a complete enema. He

cannot get in or out of a shower, brush his teeth, or wash his hair without assistance. He

is in a wheel chair full-time, as he cannot walk. He crawls as his primary movement

mechanism inside his home, and he cannot stand on his own. He cannot do things that

most children his age are able to do for themselves, such as get his own snacks or

cereal, bathe himself, or brush his teeth. He has an individualized education plan (IEP),

he attends school in a special education classroom, and he receives speech and

language therapy through his school. Claimant’s parents have been told by claimant’s

doctor that it is unknown whether claimant will ever be able to live independently.

6. Claimant’s mother previously wanted her son to be enrolled in a general

education classroom, but she eventually agreed that he should be in a special education

classroom. Claimant is currently in second grade at a year-round school. He began

attending school in a special education classroom during the summer of 2017. Before

then, he had been receiving language and speech services, but he was in a general

education classroom with assistance. He has problems with retention of learned

material. Mathematics is an area of strength and his reading abilities are varied.

7. Claimant’s May 19, 2016, and May 16, 2017, IEPs list claimant’s primary

disability as “Orthopedic Impairment,” and his secondary disability as “Speech or

Language Impairment.” The IEPs also describe how claimant’s disability affects his

progress in the general curriculum as follows:

[Claimant] has delayed mobility due to Spina Bifida. Per

speech and language evaluation, [claimant] also

demonstrates delay in the area of phonology/articulation.


4

These phonological processes negatively affects [sic]

[claimant’s] speech intelligibility which may affect his

participation during group activities and discussion in class.

8. Both parties referenced the IEP Team Meeting Comments in claimant’s

May 2017 IEP during the hearing, which included the following:

Parent had requested a psycho-educational evaluation for

[claimant]. School psychologist reviewed the results of the

evaluation. [Claimant] is a student diagnosed with Spina

Bifida. He has difficulty with motor skills due to paralysis.

[Claimant] requires urinary catheter every four hours and

requires the use of a wheelchair for mobility. [Claimant]

continues to qualify for special education services as a

student with Orthopedically Impaired (OI) and Other Health

Impairment (OHI). [Claimant] continues to receive services

for Adapted PE (APE), Speech and Language (SLI) and

Physical Therapy (PT). [Claimant] does not meet the criteria

for a student with a specific learning disability (SLD), but

[claimant] demonstrates learning weaknesses due to his

other disabilities.

[¶] . . . [¶]

General education teacher shared some of [claimant’s] work

samples with parent. [Claimant] is a great student in class.

[Claimant] has a hard time moving up in a reading level.

[Claimant] has a great memory and can grasp auditory


5

information, but he struggles when the task turns to visual

reading. Teacher also shared that [claimant] struggles to

retain information from day to day. School psychologist

shared that research supports that students with Spina Bifida

have more difficulty with memory and recall.

SANDRA BROOKS, PH.D.’S EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY

9. Sandra Brooks, Ph.D., holds a doctorate in psychology and is a clinical

psychologist licensed to practice in California. She has worked as a staff psychologist for

IRC for the past 10 and a half years, assessing the eligibility of claimants for regional

center services. In her position, she evaluates whether persons are eligible for services

based on autism, intellectual disability, and/or the fifth category. If a person asserts he is

eligible due to Cerebral Palsy or Epilepsy, a medical doctor evaluates whether he or she

is eligible. Dr. Brooks has limited knowledge regarding Spina Bifida. She understands

that some children with Spina Bifida have learning difficulties.

10. Dr. Brooks explained that children under three years of age with delays in

certain areas may be eligible for a regional center’s Early Start Program. Once a child in

the Early Start Program reaches three years of age, he or she may not continue to

receive regional center services unless he or she is eligible under the Lanterman Act.

11. Dr. Brooks opined that claimant is not eligible for regional center services.

Dr. Brooks based her opinion on her review of all the documents that were received in

evidence in this matter, including claimant’s IEPs and the psychoeducational evaluations

that were conducted in 2013 and 2017. Dr. Brooks would not diagnose claimant as

suffering from intellectual disability nor would she find claimant to be eligible under the

fifth category based on the cognitive test results contained in the records she reviewed.

Dr. Brooks explained that it was not necessary for IRC to conduct additional cognitive

testing, as there was enough recent information regarding claimant’s cognitive


6

functioning in the records she reviewed to conclude that he is not eligible for regional

center services at this time.

12. When reviewing the documents, Dr. Brooks looked at claimant’s standard

scores for cognitive and adaptive functioning to determine claimant’s eligibility for

regional center services. In order for a person to be considered as intellectually disabled,

Dr. Brooks would need to see standard scores below 70. To be considered in the fifth

category, the scores would typically need to be from 70 to 75, in the borderline

functioning range. The farther standard scores are above 70, the less likely a person

would be considered to be in the fifth category. Additionally, when diagnosing children,

it is important that the scores show some stability over time, as it is not unusual for

children to show fluctuations in cognitive functioning. Therefore, children are typically

not diagnosed as being in the fifth category. In this case, Dr. Brooks did not see a

consistent pattern of borderline scores that would support diagnosing claimant as

falling within the fifth category.

13. When Dr. Brooks was asked questions about whether claimant would need

treatment similar to what a person with an intellectual disability would need, she

struggled because there is “no treatment for intellectual disability” as it is not curable

and because it is unusual to diagnosis a child as falling within the fifth category. She did

note that such treatment might include job training or coaching for an adult or

specialized education in school for a child. Dr. Brooks stressed that although someone

may suffer from substantial disabilities, those disabilities must stem from a diagnosis of

Cerebral Palsy, Epilepsy, autism, intellectual disability, or the fifth category for the person

to be eligible for regional center services. She gave as an example that even though a

person may suffer from a substantially disabling condition as the result of an accident,

that person would not be eligible for regional center services.


7

14. During her testimony, Dr. Brooks discussed claimant’s cognitive and

adaptive standard scores, and some of his other test and scale results, and she explained

why she did not believe those scores supported eligibility for regional center services

based on intellectual disability or the fifth category.

The 2013 Developmental Profile Third Edition Scores The Regional Center of Orange County Relied Upon in 2013

15. According to regional center transfer documents sent to IRC from the

RCOC, during 2013, when claimant was approaching three years of age, RCOC evaluated

claimant and determined he was not eligible for regional center services under the

Lanterman Act. A Developmental Profile Third Edition (DP-3) was conducted by Gerald

D. Alpern, Ph.D., on April 18, 2013, when claimant was two years and four months old. At

that time, claimant’s DP-3 standard scores were:

Physical 57 Delayed

Adaptive Behavior 93 Average

Social-Emotional 85 Average

Cognitive 100 Average

Communication 88 Average

General Development 79 Below Average

Dr. Brooks explained that the DP-3 is used to determine development compared

to persons of similar age. In order to evaluate whether claimant suffers from intellectual

disability or the fifth category, Dr. Brooks considered claimant’s 2013 DP-3 cognitive and

adaptive scores. Dr. Alpern’s 2013 report provided the following interpretations of

claimant’s standard scores on the cognitive and adaptive behavior scales:


8

Adaptive Behavior scale. On the Adaptive Behavior scale,

[claimant] obtained a standard score of 93, which is

considered to be Average. This scale measures an individual’s

age-appropriate independent functioning, which includes

the ability to use current technology. [Claimant’s] score

indicates that he has average abilities related to acquisition

of adaptive behavior skills. He likely has specific areas of

strength and weakness within the adaptive behavior realm,

but in general is functioning at an adequate developmental

level.

[¶] . . . [¶]

Cognitive scale. [Claimant] obtained a standard score of 100

on the Cognitive scale, which measures perception, concept

development, number relations, reasoning, memory,

classification, time concepts, and related mental acuity tasks

as reported by [claimant’s mother]. His score is seen as

Average, which implies that [claimant’s] cognitive skills are at

the expected level for his age.

According to Dr. Brooks, because claimant’s 2013 DP-3 scores in the cognitive

and adaptive behavior categories were in the average range, those scores did not

support a diagnosis of intellectual disability or placement in the fifth category.


9

Cognitive Scores in the May 30, 2013, Multidisciplinary Psychoeducational Assessment Report

16. Also during 2013, when claimant was two years and eleven months old, a

battery of tools was used by a multidisciplinary team of the Fullerton School District to

evaluate him.

The Differential Abilities Scales II (DAS-II), which is designed to assess cognitive

abilities of children, was used to assess claimant. Claimant’s standard scores were 87 for

verbal, 91 for nonverbal reasoning, and 88 for global conceptual ability. All those scores

were in the low average range. The report summarized the findings regarding claimant’s

cognitive functioning as follows:

[Claimant’s] general cognitive ability is within the low

average range of intellectual functioning. His overall thinking

and reasoning abilities exceed those of approximately 21 %

of children his age (GCA = 88). [Claimant’s] verbal

functioning in receptive language falls within the average

range (TS = 47); his expressive verbal score is within the low

average range (TS = 37). [Claimant’s] nonverbal reasoning

skills are within the average range (SS = 91). [Claimant] was

able to follow simple verbal directions; he was at times

resistant to identifying pictures and naming objects that his

mother said he normally names. He has no trouble matching

pictures based on concrete and abstract relationships, and

he followed directions to construct some simple patterns

with blocks.

Claimant’s pre-academic skills were measured using the Brigance Diagnostic

Inventory of Early Development II. His “General knowledge/Pre-Academics” standard


10

score was 92, and his pre-academic skills “were found to be in the average range”; his

total fine motor skills standard score was 94, in the average range; his gross motor skills

standard score was 60, in the mild deficit range; his self-help standard score was 86, in

the low average range; and his social emotional standard score was 89, in the low

average range. Claimant’s functional pre-academic skills, as measured by the Adaptive

Behavior Assessment System II (based on the parent’s report) was a scaled score of 7,

which was in the low average range.

According to Dr. Brooks, these standard and scaled scores did not support an

intellectual disability or fifth category diagnosis.

May 16, 2017, Corona-Norco Psychoeducational Report

17. In 2017, at his parents’ request, the Corona-Norco Unified School District

referred claimant, who was then six years and ten months old, for a psychoeducational

evaluation. The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II), was

used to evaluate claimant’s cognitive functioning. Claimant’s standard scores were as

follows:

Fluid-Crystalized Index (FCI) 80 Below Average

Non-Verbal Index 89 Below Average

Sequential Processing 71 Well Below Average

Learning Ability 86 Below Average

Simultaneous Processing 94 Average

Knowledge 96 Average

Dr. Brooks explained that claimant’s overall KABC II score was in the low average

range, with his greatest weakness in the sequential processing category. In her opinion,

his scores were not similar to scores she might see from to someone with an intellectual

disability.


11

On the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children – Second Edition – Non-Verbal

(KABC-II Non Verbal), which is a measure of cognitive functioning, claimant’s nonverbal

index score was 89. Dr. Brooks described this score as in the high end of the low average

range.

The Woodcock-Johnson IV Test of Achievement was also administered. Dr.

Brooks described claimant’s results as “scattered,” because claimant had standard scores

measuring various reading skills ranging from the mid-50s through the mid-80s, while

he had mathematics scores in the 80s and 90s. Dr. Brooks stressed that this tool was

testing claimant’s achievement, which she differentiated from testing his cognitive

functioning.

Based on claimant’s 2017 scores, Dr. Brooks did not consider claimant to be like

someone with an intellectual disability and she would not place him in the fifth category.

CLAIMANT’S PARENTS’ TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENTS

18. Claimant’s parents want to obtain all the resources that are available to

help their son. They are particularly concerned about his ability to care for himself and

to retain information he learns in school, as he suffers from problems remembering

things he has learned. They do not believe claimant suffers from Cerebral Palsy, Epilepsy,

autism, or intellectual disability. However, they believe he should receive regional center

services under the fifth category because claimant needs treatment that is similar to

treatment received by persons with an intellectual disability.

Claimant’s parents prepared a chart of medical treatments, similar to the care

their son needs, which they understand may be given to persons with intellectual

disabilities based on an article titled Medical Care of Adults with Mental Retardation,

Christopher D. Prater, M.D., and Richard G. Zylstra, ED.D., L.C.S.W. The article was


12

published at www.aafp.org.1 The chart claimant’s parents prepared listed the following

medical disorders and the treatments for those disorders which are similar to treatments

claimant has received:

1 Claimant’s parents did not supply the article, but they testified about it and

presented the chart they made based on information they read in it.

Disorder Medical Phenotypic Expression

Cerebral Palsy Urinary: Incontinence

Neuromusculoskeletal: chronic pain

(lumbosacral, hip, leg), muscle spasticity,

seizures, osteoporosis, scoliosis

Cri du chat syndrome Orthopedic: scoliosis

Down syndrome Dermatologic: seborrheic dermatitis of scalp

and face, eczema of hands and feet, tinea

infections including onychomycosis

Ophthalmic: strabismus, cataracts, decreased

visual acuity

Orthopedic: Atlantoaxial instability, patellar

subluxation, hip disease, osteoporosis

Rett syndrome Gastrointestinal: drooling, GERD, swallowing

difficulties, constipation with functional

megacolon, gallbladder dysfunction

Tuberous sclerosis Neurologic: seizures, obstructive hydrocephalus

Claimant’s parents argued that because claimant suffers from substantial

disabilities due to his Spina Bifida and he requires treatment similar to treatment that


http://www.aafp.org

13

persons with intellectual disabilities may also require, that he should be found eligible

for regional center services under the fifth category.

LEGAL CONCLUSIONS

BURDEN OF PROOF

1. In a proceeding to determine regional center eligibility, the burden of

proof is on the claimant to establish he or she meets the proper criteria. The standard is

a preponderance of the evidence. (Evid. Code, §§ 115 and 500.)

2. “‘Preponderance of the evidence means evidence that has more

convincing force than that opposed to it.’ [Citations.]” (Glage v. Hawes Firearms

Company (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 314, 324-325.) “The sole focus of the legal definition of

‘preponderance’ in the phrase ‘preponderance of the evidence’ is on the quality of the

evidence. The quantity of the evidence presented by each side is irrelevant.” (Ibid.) “If

the evidence is so evenly balanced that you are unable to say that the evidence on

either side of an issue preponderates, your finding on that issue must be against the

party who had the burden of proving it [citation].” (People v. Mabini (2001) 92

Cal.App.4th 654, 663.)

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

3. The Lanterman Act is set forth at Welfare and Institutions Code section

4500 et seq.

4. Welfare and Institutions Code section 4501 states:

The State of California accepts a responsibility for persons

with developmental disabilities and an obligation to them

which it must discharge. Affecting hundreds of thousands of

children and adults directly, and having an important impact


14

on the lives of their families, neighbors, and whole

communities, developmental disabilities present social,

medical, economic, and legal problems of extreme

importance.

[¶] . . . [¶]

An array of services and supports should be established

which is sufficiently complete to meet the needs and choices

of each person with developmental disabilities, regardless of

age or degree of disability, and at each stage of life and to

support their integration into the mainstream life of the

community. To the maximum extent feasible, services and

supports should be available throughout the state to prevent

the dislocation of persons with developmental disabilities

from their home communities. . . .

5. Welfare and Institutions Code section 4512, subdivision (a), defines

“developmental disability” as follows:

“Developmental disability” means a disability that originates

before an individual attains 18 years of age; continues, or can

be expected to continue, indefinitely; and constitutes a

substantial disability for that individual. As defined by the

Director of Developmental Services, in consultation with the

Superintendent of Public Instruction, this term shall include

intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism.

This term shall also include disabling conditions found to be

closely related to intellectual disability or to require


15

treatment similar to that required for individuals with an

intellectual disability, but shall not include other

handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature.

6. California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 54000,2 provides:

2 The regulation still uses the former term “mental retardation” instead of

“intellectual disability.”

(a) “Developmental Disability” means a disability that is

attributable to mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy,

autism, or disabling conditions found to be closely related to

mental retardation or to require treatment similar to that

required for individuals with mental retardation.

(b) The Developmental Disability shall:

(1) Originate before age eighteen;

(2) Be likely to continue indefinitely;

(3) Constitute a substantial disability for the individual as

defined in the article.

(c) Developmental Disability shall not include handicapping

conditions that are:

(1) Solely psychiatric disorders where there is impaired

intellectual or social functioning which originated as a result


16

of the psychiatric disorder or treatment given for such a

disorder. Such psychiatric disorders include psycho-social

deprivation and/or psychosis, severe neurosis or personality

disorders even where social and intellectual functioning have

become seriously impaired as an integral manifestation of

the disorder.

(2) Solely learning disabilities. A learning disability is a

condition which manifests as a significant discrepancy

between estimated cognitive potential and actual level of

educational performance and which is not a result of

generalized mental retardation, educational or psycho-social

deprivation, psychiatric disorder, or sensory loss.

(3) Solely physical in nature. These conditions include

congenital anomalies or conditions acquired through

disease, accident, or faulty development which are not

associated with a neurological impairment that results in a

need for treatment similar to that required for mental

retardation.

7. California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 54001, provides:

(a) “Substantial disability” means:

(1) A condition which results in major impairment of

cognitive and/or social functioning, representing sufficient

impairment to require interdisciplinary planning and


17

coordination of special or generic services to assist the

individual in achieving maximum potential; and

(2) The existence of significant functional limitations, as

determined by the regional center, in three or more of the

following areas of major life activity, as appropriate to the

person’s age:

(A) Receptive and expressive language;

(B) Learning;

(C) Self-care;

(D) Mobility;

(E) Self-direction;

(F) Capacity for independent living;

(G) Economic self-sufficiency.

(b) The assessment of substantial disability shall be made by

a group of Regional Center professionals of differing

disciplines and shall include consideration of similar

qualification appraisals performed by other interdisciplinary

bodies of the Department serving the potential client. The

group shall include as a minimum a program coordinator, a

physician, and a psychologist.

(c) The Regional Center professional group shall consult the

potential client, parents, guardians/conservators, educators,

advocates, and other client representatives to the extent that

they are willing and available to participate in its


18

deliberations and to the extent that the appropriate consent

is obtained.

(d) Any reassessment of substantial disability for purposes of

continuing eligibility shall utilize the same criteria under

which the individual was originally made eligible.

8. Welfare and Institutions Code section 4642, subdivision (a), requires a

regional center to perform initial intake and assessment services for “any person

believed to have a developmental disability.” Welfare and Institutions Code section

4643, subdivisions (a) and (b), provide the following regarding assessment services:

(a) If assessment is needed, the assessment shall be

performed within 120 days following initial intake.

Assessment shall be performed as soon as possible and in no

event more than 60 days following initial intake where any

delay would expose the client to unnecessary risk to his or

her health and safety or to significant further delay in mental

or physical development, or the client would be at imminent

risk of placement in a more restrictive environment.

Assessment may include collection and review of available

historical diagnostic data, provision or procurement of

necessary tests and evaluations, and summarization of

developmental levels and service needs and is conditional

upon receipt of the release of information specified in

subdivision (b).


19

(b) In determining if an individual meets the definition of

developmental disability contained in subdivision (a) of

Section 4512, the regional center may consider evaluations

and tests, including, but not limited to, intelligence tests,

adaptive functioning tests, neurological and

neuropsychological tests, diagnostic tests performed by a

physician, psychiatric tests, and other tests or evaluations

that have been performed by, and are available from, other

sources.

APPLICABLE CASE LAW

9. In Mason v. Office of Administrative Hearings (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1119,

1127, the Fourth District Court of Appeal discussed the language in the Lanterman Act

regarding the fifth category, and determined the language was not impermissibly vague.

The appellate court explained that finding as follows (Ibid. at pp. 1128-1130.):

In the instant case, the terms “closely related to” and “similar

treatment” are general, somewhat imprecise terms. However,

section 4512(a) does not exist, and we do not apply it, in

isolation. “[W]here the language of a statute fails to provide

an objective standard by which conduct can be judged, the

required specificity may nonetheless be provided by the

common knowledge and understanding of members of the

particular vocation or profession to which the statute

applies.” [Footnote omitted.] Here, the Lanterman Act and

implementing regulations clearly defer to the expertise of

the DDS and RC professionals and their determination as to


20

whether an individual is developmentally disabled. General,

as well as specific guidelines are provided in the Lanterman

Act and regulations to assist such RC professionals in making

this difficult, complex determination. Some degree of

generality and, hence, vagueness is thus tolerable.

The language defining the fifth category does not allow such

subjectivity and unbridled discretion as to render section

4512 impermissibly vague. The fifth category condition must

be very similar to mental retardation, with many of the same,

or close to the same, factors required in classifying a person

as mentally retarded. Furthermore, the various additional

factors required in designating an individual developmentally

disabled and substantially handicapped must apply as well.

While there is some subjectivity involved in determining

whether the condition is substantially similar to mental

retardation and requires similar treatment, it is not enough

to render the statute unconstitutionally vague, particularly

when developmentally [sic] disabilities are widely differing

and difficult to define with precision. Section 4512 and the

implementing regulations prescribe an adequate standard or

policy directive for the guidance of the RCs in their

determinations of eligibility for services.

EVALUATION

10. The Lanterman Act and the applicable regulations set forth criteria that a

claimant must meet to qualify for regional center services. There is no question that


21

claimant suffers from significant disabilities as a result of his medical condition, Spina

Bifida. However, as is set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code section 4512, subdivision

(a), and California Code of Regulations, title 17 section 54000, subdivision (c)(3), a

developmental disability “shall not include handicapping conditions” which are “solely

physical in nature,” including “congenital anomalies or conditions acquired through

disease, accident, or faulty development which are not associated with a neurological

impairment that results in a need for treatment similar to that required for” intellectual

disability.

11. The evidence introduced in this hearing was not sufficient to prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that claimant’s disabilities are a result of him suffering

from an intellectual disability or meeting the criteria for eligibility under the fifth

category. IRC properly considered RCOC’s prior 2013 assessment and the evaluations

and tests conducted by the school districts in 2013 and 2017. Additional intelligence

testing was not warranted, as it was appropriate for IRC to rely on the recent cognitive

testing performed by the school district during 2017, which resulted in scores that were

consistent with the testing performed in 2013. Because the evidence failed to

demonstrate claimant suffers from an intellectual disability or a condition that would

place him in the fifth category, claimant is not eligible to receive regional center services

at this time. Thus, his appeal from IRC’s determination that he is ineligible to receive

regional center services must be denied.

ORDER

1. Claimant is ineligible for regional center services and supports under the

Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act.

//

2. Claimant’s appeal from Inland Regional Center’s determination that he is

not eligible for regional center services and supports is denied.


22

DATED: November 1, 2017

__________________________

THERESA M. BREHL

Administrative Law Judge

Office of Administrative Hearings

NOTICE

This is the final administrative decision. Both parties are bound by this decision.

Either party may appeal this decision to a court of competent jurisdiction within ninety

days.


case number 2017070552 modified document for accessibility · 2020-04-23 · education classroom...

Documents