· 11/2/2021

Benjamin v. Dept. of Developmental Services

Syllabus

The plaintiffs, B and his mother and guardian D, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their administrative appeal from the decision of the defendant Commissioner of Developmental Services, concluding that B was not eligible for services from the defen- dant Department of Developmental Services. D filed an application with the department on B's behalf, seeking services related to B's intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder. The department informed D that B was not eligible for services, and she requested a formal eligibility hearing. Following the hearing, the department's hearing officer issued a proposed decision concluding that B was eligible for services. After reviewing the record, however, the commissioner issued a final decision determining that, as a result of B's test scores, when viewed in their totality in accordance with our Supreme Court's decision in Christopher R. v. Commissioner of Mental Retardation (277 Conn. 594), B did not meet the eligibility criteria for an intellectual disability as defined in the applicable statute (§ 1-1g). The plaintiffs appealed from the commission- er's decision to the Superior Court, which concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record supporting the commissioner's final decision, and the plaintiffs appealed to this court. Held: 1. The plaintiffs could not prevail on their claim that an amendment to § 1- 1g in 2012 (Public Acts 2012, No. 12-136), which, inter alia, replaced the term ''one or more'' with the word ''tests'' with respect to the manner in which the existence of an intellectual disability was to be determined, precluded the department from considering more than one intelligence test in its eligibility determinations when the applicant presents one full-scale IQ test score below 70: following the statutory amendment, Christopher R. remained good law and continued to control the meaning of § 1-1g, as, in that decision, our Supreme Court did not rely sol

Judges: Bright; Alvord; Pellegrino

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.