led the trial court to make that determination against established scientific principles by: “fail[ing] to (a) examine both strengths and limitations, (b) considering] and [giving] overriding weight to a few examples of atypical behavior by-;Mr. Butler -rather than focusing on his typical behavior,. and (c) considering] his criminal behaviors as showing adaptive strengths.” In Butler’s view, Atkins and Hall v. Florida, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 188 L.Ed.2d 1007 (20.14), mandate that courts closely follow established scientific and clinical principles when making findings on adaptive function, and the trial court did not do so when it disregarded the Vineland Adaptive Behavior test of Butler’s adaptive skills given by Dr. Denis Keyes, Butler’s expert. See Hall, 134 S.Ct. at 1990,. 1995 (<HOLDING>). Butler contends that the trial court
holding disability discrimination claim barred holding that attorneys admission to an element of the offense in the petitioners presence at a deportation hearing was binding on the petitioners holding floridas mandatory cutoff at an iq score of 70 for considering a petitioners claim for intellectual disability disregarded established medical practice holding that a claimants failure to list an impairment either in her application for disability benefits or through her testimony disposes of the claim because the alj was under no obligation to investigate a claim not presented at the time of the application for benefits and not offered at the hearing as a basis for disability holding evidence of a 13 permanent partial disability insufficient to establish disability for purposes of ada