Families across Connecticut who care for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities are facing a profound systemic barrier as they navigate the transition from youth services to adult care. At the heart of this challenge is a newly filed federal and state civil lawsuit targeting the Connecticut Department of Developmental Services (DDS) and its commissioner, Elisa Velardo. The legal action takes direct aim at the agency’s practice of determining eligibility for state-funded adult support resources by relying strictly on a predetermined intelligence quotient (IQ) score cutoff. Filed by the Bridgeport-based law firm Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, the lawsuit contends that this rigid metric arbitrarily strips vulnerable residents of essential resources, creating an unconstitutional bureaucratic gap for young adults who have been clinically diagnosed with intellectual disabilities yet fail to meet the state’s narrow statistical threshold.
The plaintiffs in the landmark case include four young adult residents of Connecticut: Alex Capuano, 19, of Fairfield; Andrew Baylis, 23, of Darien; Daynasha Bohannon, 18, of Bridgeport; and Carriella Borchetta, 20, of Trumbull. Each of these individuals has been evaluated by licensed clinicians who determined, through a combination of low IQ metrics and concurrent adaptive behavioral scores, that they meet the diagnostic criteria for intellectual disability outlined in standard medical manuals. Nevertheless, because their testing records reflect individual Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ) scores touching or rising above 70 at certain points, the state DDS has denied them access to foundational adult services. Advocates argue that this exclusionary approach reduces complex human capabilities to a single, flawed number, ignoring the comprehensive evaluations of medical professionals and leaving families to shoulder the immense burdens of lifelong care without state assistance.
Background Context of the Legal Battle
The legal challenge brings to light a long-standing tension between statutory administrative definitions and modern clinical standards for diagnosing intellectual and developmental disabilities. For decades, state agencies nationwide have grappled with how to distribute limited fiscal resources while ensuring that individuals genuinely in need receive adequate support. In Connecticut, the DDS is statutorily mandated to provide comprehensive, integrated statewide services for persons with intellectual disabilities. These services range from fundamental case management and community integration programs to specialized job coaching and supported housing arrangements.
However, the mechanism used by the state to gatekeep these services has remained exceptionally rigid. Under the current administrative framework, an applicant who otherwise meets every diagnostic and behavioral requirement for an intellectual disability is automatically disqualified if a single testing record shows an FSIQ score of 70 or higher. This strict adherence places Connecticut in a shrinking minority of jurisdictions nationwide. According to legal briefs and advocacy groups, Connecticut is one of only three states in the entire country that continues to define intellectual disability and determine eligibility for services exclusively through a strict IQ score cutoff. By contrast, approximately 47 states have evolved their evaluation methods to align with modern expert consensus, including guidelines set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). These contemporary standards treat IQ scores as merely one contextual factor among many in a holistic assessment of an individual’s cognitive and adaptive functioning.
Chronology of the Transition Cliff and Administrative Denial
The crisis facing these families typically culminates when young adults reach a critical age threshold within the state’s educational and social service ecosystem. In Connecticut, individuals with disabilities are generally legally entitled to specialized educational and developmental services through the public school system and related state frameworks until they reach the age of 22.
As education law expert Andrew Feinstein of the Feinstein Education Law Group points out, young adults reach the conclusion of this entitlement period and suddenly find themselves facing the end of the road. Upon aging out of the educational system, individuals must apply directly to the Department of Developmental Services for adult eligibility. For families whose children possess uneven cognitive profiles—where certain subtests or historical evaluations place their IQ above the strict limit of 70, despite profound deficits in daily adaptive functioning—the transition results in an immediate administrative roadblock.
The named plaintiffs in the lawsuit have individually navigated this frustrating administrative pipeline, encountering repeated denials despite overwhelming evidence of need. For instance, one of the plaintiffs, who lives at home under the full-time care and supervision of aging parents, has documented profound adaptive deficiencies present since birth. Because of these cognitive and functional limitations, this individual cannot live independently, travel safely alone, cook without supervision, make healthful dietary choices, or handle personal finances. Despite multiple administrative appeals and a formal hearing in 2025—during which a DDS hearing officer acknowledged that the applicant did possess some IQ scores falling below 69, alongside higher scores indicating alternative functional contexts—the state ultimately upheld the denial. The hearing officer determined that the applicant did not technically meet the strict statutory definition required for state services, severing access to vital case management and community participation programs.
Perspectives from Legal Advocates and Disability Experts
The lawsuit has garnered widespread support from prominent legal and advocacy organizations throughout Connecticut, including the Center for Children’s Advocacy. Jennifer Wheeler and Sarah Mervine of the advocacy center have been vocal in criticizing the state’s reliance on outdated metrics. Wheeler emphasized that the state of Connecticut is fully aware of the urgent necessity for reform, yet the human and financial costs of delay are being unfairly absorbed by the plaintiffs and families bearing the weight of the system’s shortcomings.
Advocates point out that eligibility for DDS services is the absolute gateway to every form of adult support required for meaningful community integration. Without formal DDS eligibility, individuals are completely locked out of specialized employment programs, as many appropriate job placement and vocational coaching initiatives in the state are contingent upon active DDS enrollment. Sarah Mervine noted that while the plaintiffs possess comprehensive clinical documentation proving their intellectual disabilities, they remain invisible to a bureaucratic structure that refuses to look beyond a single arithmetic threshold.
Furthermore, Andrew Feinstein stressed that excluding these capable individuals represents a tangible loss to society at large. Many young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities possess unique skills, strong social inclinations, and a deep desire to contribute to their communities. Without the foundational support structures that DDS is designed to provide, their potential remains untapped, shifting an unsustainable burden entirely onto family caregivers.
Constitutional Arguments and Legal Claims
The civil lawsuit filed by Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder raises serious constitutional questions regarding the fairness, legality, and rationality of the current DDS eligibility framework. The plaintiffs allege that the department’s strict application of the IQ cutoff violates multiple foundational provisions of both federal and state law:
- The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, which protects individuals from being arbitrarily deprived of established property interests and essential government benefits.
- The Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, ensuring that similarly situated individuals are not subjected to irrational or discriminatory administrative classifications.
- Article I, Section 8 of the Connecticut Constitution, prohibiting the deprivation of property without due process of law.
- Article I, Section 20 of the Connecticut Constitution, which mandates equal protection under the law for individuals with physical or mental disabilities.
Attorney Luke Reynolds of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder argued that the enforcement of this strict standard creates an unconstitutional bureaucratic gap, arbitrarily depriving Connecticut residents of resources they desperately need and to which they should rightfully be entitled. By reducing complex medical diagnoses to a binary score, the agency acts unreasonably and arbitrarily, stripping applicants of their property interest in essential state benefits.
Official Responses and Fiscal Realities
To date, representatives and official spokespersons for the Connecticut Department of Developmental Services have declined to comment directly on the ongoing litigation, instead referring public inquiries to the state’s published fiscal and budgetary documents.
State financial disclosures indicate that the Department of Developmental Services operates on a substantial fiscal scale. For instance, state budgetary projections outline a DDS budget of approximately $1.63 billion for Fiscal Year 2027. Additional fiscal records reveal that the vast majority of clients currently receiving services through the department reside within traditional "family homes," underscoring the vital role that state assistance plays in supplementing domestic care. However, advocates argue that despite these significant financial allocations, administrative gatekeeping mechanisms like the strict IQ cutoff improperly restrict access, leaving a significant cohort of disabled residents unserved while budgets remain heavily committed elsewhere.
Broader Impact and Societal Implications
The implications of this legal challenge extend far beyond the four named plaintiffs, carrying the potential to reshape disability services across the state of Connecticut. Attorney Luke Reynolds noted that a successful outcome in this lawsuit would yield immediate injunctive relief, enabling hundreds, if not thousands, of similar residents and their families to reapply for services under a modernized, clinically sound standard.
The personal stakes of the litigation are vividly illustrated by families like that of 19-year-old Alex Capuano. Kelly Capuano, Alex’s mother, has experienced firsthand the daunting reality of navigating the transition to adulthood while confronting personal health challenges. Capuano described her son as an outgoing, highly social young man who deeply touches everyone he meets. Throughout his school years, Alex participated actively in his community, even starring on his high school bowling team for three years and competing in a local league. However, following a sudden and devastating health issue that compromised her own mobility and forced the family to grapple with mortality, Capuano found herself unable to drive. Lacking transportation and state-supported community integration services, Alex was forced to drop out of his bowling league, symbolizing the contraction of his world as formal support systems fell away.
Capuano’s overarching fear—shared by countless aging parents, siblings, and primary caregivers across Connecticut—is the fundamental question of who will care for her son and ensure he can pursue his dreams when she and her husband are no longer able to provide full-time supervision.
As the legal proceedings advance through the court system, the outcome of the lawsuit against the Department of Developmental Services could force Connecticut to modernize its statutory definitions, aligning state administration with contemporary medical consensus. For the families currently bearing the financial, physical, and emotional costs of the state’s administrative gap, the litigation represents a crucial battle to ensure that individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities are recognized not as a single exclusionary number, but as valued members of society deserving of comprehensive support, dignity, and opportunity.
