HARTFORD, Conn. – A poignant civil lawsuit has cast a spotlight on Connecticut’s restrictive eligibility criteria for services vital to residents with intellectual disabilities, sparking a statewide debate about fairness, constitutional rights, and the true meaning of support. At the heart of the matter are four young adults—Alex Capuano, Andrew Baylis, Daynasha Bohannon, and Carriella Borchettam—all clinically diagnosed with intellectual disabilities, yet deemed ineligible for state services due to a rigid interpretation of a single intelligence quotient (IQ) score.
n
This legal challenge, filed by the prominent Bridgeport law firm Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder against the state Department of Developmental Services (DDS) and its Commissioner Elisa Velardo, argues that Connecticut’s current statute creates an "unconstitutional bureaucratic gap." By exclusively relying on a strict IQ cutoff, the state is allegedly "arbitrarily depriv[ing] Connecticut residents of resources to which they would otherwise be entitled," according to court documents. The outcome of this case could redefine how intellectual disability is recognized and supported in Connecticut, potentially bringing relief to hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals and their families.
n
The Heart of the Matter: Denied Services and a Mother’s Plea
n
For Kelly Capuano of Fairfield, the lawsuit is a fight for her son Alex’s future—and for her own peace of mind. Alex, 19, like many young adults with intellectual disabilities, faces a future shrouded in uncertainty regarding care and guidance, especially as his parents age. This common parental anxiety has been compounded by a recent and devastating blow: Alex was denied eligibility for services from the state Department of Developmental Services (DDS).
n
"It’s a common worry for untold numbers of parents, siblings and other caregivers in Connecticut," Capuano articulated, her voice heavy with the weight of responsibility. "But now, Capuano also worries because her son, Alex, who is 19, was denied services for people with intellectual abilities. He applied to the state Department of Developmental Services and the agency deemed him ineligible, Capuano said." The implications of this denial extend far beyond bureaucratic paperwork; they strike at the very core of Alex’s potential for a fulfilling, integrated life.
n
Alex’s Story: A Glimpse into a Family’s Struggle
n
The services Alex was denied are not mere conveniences; they are foundational to his ability to thrive as an adult. Capuano passionately explained that these services would enable Alex and his entire family by helping him "participate in many of the activities we all want (our) children to participate in… once they become adults." This vision of adulthood includes fundamental aspirations such as securing employment, earning a living, achieving a degree of independent living, and actively engaging in recreational pursuits like hobbies, sports, and other "things they enjoy doing… with their peers."
n
Capuano underscored a universal parental desire: "we all want for our kids" to experience these milestones. However, she emphasized that for some children, due to their disabilities, "need extra support," and with that tailored assistance, "they can thrive." Alex, for instance, is described by his mother as "very social and outgoing," a young man who "really does touch everybody he comes into contact with; it’s just his personality." Yet, he struggles with social nuances and verbal expression, requiring support like job coaching to navigate complex conversations. He loves bowling, even joining his high school team for three years and a league, but a sudden health issue for Kelly, preventing her from driving, forced Alex to drop out due to lack of transportation—a stark reminder of how interconnected his independence is with external support.
n
The personal toll on families is immense. Capuano’s recent, "sudden and devastating" health issue brought "mortality to the forefront." This crisis intensified her anxieties about Alex’s future, highlighting how "the weight of support falls on their family" when services are denied. "At some point who is going to take care of Alex?" she wonders, and how will he be allowed to "go after all of his dreams?" This profound concern resonates with countless families across the state, underscoring the critical need for a supportive state infrastructure.
n
The Core of the Complaint: An "Unconstitutional Bureaucratic Gap"
n
Kelly Capuano’s ordeal with Alex’s eligibility is not an isolated incident. It is, she states, "really is the crux" of the lawsuit, which also represents Andrew Baylis, 23, of Darien; Daynasha Bohannon, 18, of Bridgeport; and Carriella Borchettam, 20, of Trumbull. All four plaintiffs share a common and deeply frustrating experience: despite clinical diagnoses of intellectual disability, they have been denied DDS services.
n
The lawsuit precisely targets the Department of Developmental Services and Commissioner Elisa Velardo for their denial of eligibility based "on the basis of a strict intelligence quotient" cutoff. Attorney Luke Reynolds of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder critically described this application of state law as creating an "unconstitutional bureaucratic gap," wherein individuals are "denied services designed to help them." This legal challenge aims to dismantle a system that, according to the plaintiffs, prioritizes a single numerical score over a comprehensive understanding of an individual’s needs and abilities.
n
A Timeline of Disparity: From Diagnosis to Legal Action
n
The journey for many individuals and families seeking intellectual disability services in Connecticut is often fraught with challenges, culminating in the current legal battle. The central point of contention lies in the state’s definition of intellectual disability and its application in determining eligibility for the Department of Developmental Services.
n
The Eligibility Quandary: When Clinical Diagnosis Isn’t Enough
n
The lawsuit explicitly details the frustrating paradox faced by the plaintiffs: "All the plaintiffs were denied eligibility for services by DDS, despite having IQ scores that fell below 70, because one or more of their IQ scores rose above 70," the suit claims. This critical detail highlights a fundamental flaw in the state’s approach. Even if multiple IQ scores indicated intellectual disability, a single score above the arbitrary threshold of 70 could negate eligibility.
n
The plaintiffs, as the lawsuit asserts, "Each Plaintiff had concurrent low IQ and adaptive scores that a clinician found to meet the criteria for intellectual disability pursuant to the diagnostic manual." This refers to widely accepted diagnostic standards, such as those outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), which emphasize a holistic assessment that includes not just intellectual functioning (IQ) but also adaptive functioning—the ability to cope with common life demands and live independently.
n
Under the DDS’s application of state law, an applicant "who has been diagnosed as having intellectual disability by a clinician and who otherwise meets the law’s eligibility criteria but whose testing record reflects a Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (‘FSIQ’) score of 70 or higher, is stripped of any process by which to obtain eligibility for DDS services." This means that even with a clear clinical diagnosis and demonstrated adaptive challenges, a single numerical threshold can unilaterally bar access to crucial support.
n
The Lawsuit Takes Shape: Challenging an Outdated Standard
n
The legal challenge isn’t just about individual cases; it’s about a systemic issue. Andrew Feinstein, of the Feinstein Education Law Group, noted a significant "cliff" in services: "children and youths are entitled to services until age 22 in Connecticut, ‘and they reach that point and it’s the end of the road,’ under current policy and actions." This abrupt cessation of support, often coinciding with the transition to adulthood, leaves families scrambling and individuals without the necessary scaffolding to build independent lives. Eligibility for DDS services is the crucial "first step to all types of services available, the highest level being supported housing, and down to job coaching," Feinstein explained, adding that services are then determined "based on the needs of the individual."
n
The lawsuit, therefore, represents a concerted effort to prevent this "end of the road" scenario for many. Jennifer Wheeler, of the Center for Children’s Advocacy, unequivocally stated their goal: "we want every person to access services promised to them." She condemned the current system, calling "the method for determining eligibility is arbitrary and outdated." Sarah Mervine, also from the Center for Children’s Advocacy, corroborated that the plaintiffs possess clinical diagnoses confirming their intellectual disabilities, yet they "are not meeting the definition under the state statute." This disconnect between clinical reality and statutory definition is the crux of the legal argument.
n
Mervine further highlighted a critical consequence of this denial: even appropriate job opportunities remain inaccessible "unless the client is with DDS." This illustrates how the lack of eligibility creates a cascade of missed opportunities, preventing individuals from contributing to society and achieving personal fulfillment. The lawsuit seeks to rectify this by demanding a reevaluation of the state’s definition of intellectual disability, bringing it in line with modern clinical understanding and national standards.
n
Unpacking the Arguments: Legal, Medical, and Human Dimensions
n
The civil lawsuit against Connecticut’s Department of Developmental Services is built upon a multi-faceted critique of the state’s eligibility criteria, drawing on legal principles, medical consensus, and deeply personal human experiences. The plaintiffs argue that the DDS’s strict adherence to a singular IQ score is not only discriminatory but also fundamentally misunderstands the complex nature of intellectual disability.
n
The National Standard vs. Connecticut’s Anomaly
n
Perhaps the most compelling argument in the lawsuit centers on Connecticut’s isolation in its rigid approach. The suit claims, "Connecticut is one of only three states in the country that continues to define intellectual disability with and exclusively rely on a strict IQ score cutoff to determine eligibility for Services." This statistic places Connecticut squarely outside the mainstream of best practices. In stark contrast, "47 states don’t mandate a strict IQ cutoff, but have approaches used by experts, clinicians, and the ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition’ that considers IQ as just ‘one factor in assessing intellectual disability.’"
n
The DSM-5, the authoritative guide used by mental health professionals, defines intellectual disability based on three criteria: deficits in intellectual functions (like reasoning, problem-solving, planning, abstract thinking, judgment, academic learning, and learning from experience), deficits in adaptive functioning (which limit functioning in daily activities across multiple environments), and an onset of these deficits during the developmental period. Crucially, the DSM-5 explicitly states that an IQ score should be interpreted within the context of other factors, not as a standalone determinant. "A strict IQ cutoff is an inconsistent and unreliable measure of intellectual disability," the suit states, aligning with broad professional consensus.
n
Beyond the Numbers: The Role of Adaptive Functioning
n
The lawsuit meticulously details how the DDS’s strict IQ cutoff disregards critical aspects of an individual’s functioning. For instance, one plaintiff, residing at home with parents for full-time care and supervision, was deemed ineligible despite profound needs. This individual was "denied case management services and other services necessary to allow continued participation in community life, or to pursue employment," the suit notes. This highlights the disjunction between clinical reality and bureaucratic denial.
n
Another poignant example describes a client with "profound adaptive deficiencies present since birth and persisting to date." Due to their intellectual disability, this individual "can’t live independently or go anywhere alone, can’t safely cook or make healthful eating choices or make independent financial decisions." Despite these clear and debilitating challenges, the client was denied services multiple times. A DDS hearing officer, after a 2025 hearing, acknowledged that while the client "did have some IQ scores less than 69 other scores indicate a higher level of functioning and discussion of the results indicated other reasons for the lower score." This statement itself reveals the inherent flaw: even when low scores exist, the presence of a single higher score, or a subjective interpretation of "other reasons," can override a comprehensive clinical picture of intellectual disability.
The lawsuit asserts that by applying state law to exclude individuals from "benefits and services of DDS because they have one recorded IQ score ‘more than two standard deviations below the mean as measured by tests of general intellectual functioning,’" DDS "unreasonably and arbitrarily deprived the plaintiff of the plaintiff’s property interest in essential state benefits for which they are otherwise eligible." This argument underscores the state’s statutory responsibility for "complete, comprehensive and integrated state-wide services for persons with intellectual disability."
Personal Narratives: The Unseen Costs of Exclusion
Beyond the legal and medical arguments, the core of this lawsuit is the human cost of denial. Jennifer Wheeler of the Center for Children’s Advocacy emphasized that "the costs are real; our plaintiffs are bearing the cost." These costs are not just financial, though families often face immense economic strain. They are also costs in terms of lost potential, dignity, and inclusion. "A goal is ‘to not reduce these people to numbers, a single number,’" Wheeler stated, referring to the contentious IQ eligibility level. "The plaintiffs want to learn, they want to participate, ‘they can’t without additional support,’” she added.
Andrew Feinstein poignantly articulated the broader societal loss: "The clients have a lot to give and it is a loss to society when they can’t," due to lack of support. When individuals like Alex are denied job coaching, vocational training, or supported living arrangements, society loses out on their potential contributions, their unique perspectives, and their inherent value.
Constitutional Challenges: Due Process and Equal Protection
The lawsuit’s constitutional claims form the backbone of its legal strategy. It alleges that the existing statutory framework, as established and applied by DDS, violates fundamental rights enshrined in both the United States and Connecticut Constitutions. Specifically, the suit cites:
- The United States Constitution’s Due Process Clause: This clause protects individuals from arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, or property by the government. The plaintiffs argue that essential state benefits for persons with intellectual disabilities constitute a property interest, and their arbitrary denial without a fair process violates this clause.
- The United States Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause: This clause mandates that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. The lawsuit contends that by using a strict IQ cutoff that disproportionately excludes individuals who are clinically diagnosed with intellectual disabilities, the state is creating an unconstitutional classification that denies equal protection.
- Article I, Section 8 of the Connecticut Constitution: This state constitutional provision mirrors the federal Due Process Clause, prohibiting deprivations of property without due process of law.
- Article I, Section 20 of the Connecticut Constitution: This section specifically demands equal protection of the law for individuals with physical or mental disabilities. The lawsuit argues that Connecticut’s eligibility criteria directly contravene this state-level protection for its most vulnerable citizens.
By asserting these constitutional violations, the plaintiffs seek not just a change in policy, but a recognition that the current system infringes upon basic human rights and dignity.
The State’s Stance and Budgetary Context
In response to the serious allegations raised in the lawsuit, the state Department of Developmental Services has maintained a cautious silence, adhering to standard protocol regarding pending litigation.
Department of Developmental Services Remains Silent
A spokesperson for the Department of Developmental Services declined to comment directly on the lawsuit, citing the ongoing legal proceedings. This official stance, while typical, leaves a void in the public discourse, offering no immediate defense or explanation for the department’s current eligibility practices.
Instead of commenting on the specific claims, questions were referred to state fiscal documents. This deflection suggests that the department may, at least publicly, prefer to focus on its operational scope rather than engage with the legal challenge to its core eligibility framework.
A Glimpse at DDS’s Financial Commitments
The state fiscal documents referenced by DDS provide a snapshot of the department’s significant financial responsibilities. One such document indicates that the DDS budget for Fiscal Year 2027 is projected to be a substantial $1.63 billion. This considerable allocation underscores the state’s recognition of the extensive needs within the intellectual disability community and its commitment to providing a range of services.
Another document highlights that the majority of clients currently receiving DDS services reside in a "family home." This detail implicitly points to the critical role families play as primary caregivers and the potential for increased demand on state-provided support as individuals age out of school-based services and family caregivers face their own health and age-related challenges. The lawsuit argues that by excluding individuals who are clinically eligible but fall just outside the strict IQ cutoff, the state is not only failing to meet its mandate but potentially shifting a greater, unsupported burden onto these very families, despite its substantial budget. The plaintiffs contend that the state’s significant investment should be directed by a more equitable and clinically sound eligibility process.
Far-Reaching Implications: A Precedent for Change?
The lawsuit challenging Connecticut’s strict IQ cutoff for intellectual disability services carries profound implications, not only for the named plaintiffs but for the broader landscape of disability rights and state policy. Its success could herald a new era of inclusivity and support for countless families.
Immediate Relief and Systemic Reform
Attorney Luke Reynolds articulated the potential impact of a successful outcome, stating that it "could bring immediate relief and injunctive relief." Injunctive relief would mean that others in the state could reapply under a new, more comprehensive standard, potentially leading to a fundamental shift in how eligibility is determined. This would mean that rather than being "missed by the system," hundreds, "if not thousands," of residents and their families could finally access the essential services they need and deserve.
Such a ruling would compel DDS to revise its eligibility criteria, moving away from a singular, arbitrary IQ score to a more holistic assessment that incorporates adaptive functioning and clinical diagnoses, aligning Connecticut with the practices of the vast majority of other states. This systemic reform would ensure that individuals whose intellectual disabilities are clinically recognized are not arbitrarily excluded from support designed for them.
The Socio-Economic Ripple Effect
Beyond the immediate legal and administrative changes, the implications of this lawsuit extend to the socio-economic fabric of Connecticut. When individuals with intellectual disabilities are denied access to services like job coaching, vocational training, and supported living, their potential for independent living and economic contribution is severely hampered. This not only diminishes their quality of life but also places a greater long-term burden on families and, indirectly, on the state through other support systems.
Conversely, enabling these individuals to participate more fully in society through appropriate services can lead to increased independence, employment, and community engagement. As Andrew Feinstein noted, "The clients have a lot to give," and allowing them to contribute is a gain for society as a whole. Investing in these services can lead to a more inclusive workforce, reduced reliance on crisis intervention, and a richer, more diverse community.
A Call for Dignity and Opportunity
Ultimately, this lawsuit is a powerful call for dignity and opportunity. As Jennifer Wheeler emphasized, it’s about refusing to "reduce these people to numbers, a single number." It’s about recognizing the inherent worth and potential of every individual, regardless of their IQ score. It champions the right of individuals with intellectual disabilities to learn, to participate, and to pursue their dreams, armed with the necessary support.
For families like the Capuanos, the outcome of this legal battle will shape the very future of their loved ones. It addresses the fundamental question of who will care for Alex and "allow him to go after all of his dreams" when his parents no longer can. The lawsuit represents a pivotal moment for Connecticut, challenging it to align its policies with modern understanding, ethical imperatives, and constitutional guarantees, ensuring that no resident with an intellectual disability is left behind due to an outdated and arbitrary rule. The eyes of disability advocates, families, and legal experts across the nation will undoubtedly be watching as this critical case unfolds.
