Connecticut Health Department hearing on Dr. Dennis Flanagan witnesses sparks fairness debate

In a tense atmosphere at the Connecticut Department of Public Health hearing, key figures gathered to discuss the case of Dennis Flanagan, DDS, as procedural disputes took center stage. The meeting, held on July 2, 2025, was marked by a heated exchange between the attorneys representing Dr. Flanagan and the Department of Public Health, highlighting concerns over fairness and transparency in the proceedings.

Dr. Peter Katz, presiding over the hearing, introduced the panel members and addressed preliminary matters, including issues with evidence submissions. A significant point of contention arose regarding the introduction of a new witness, Dr. Fisher, by the Department of Public Health. Attorney Mary Alice Moore Lenhart, representing Dr. Flanagan, expressed her frustration, arguing that the late notice of Dr. Fisher's testimony constituted "trial by ambush," undermining the fairness of the hearing. She emphasized that her team had prepared extensively based on the previously disclosed witnesses and felt blindsided by this last-minute change.

In response, Attorney Joelle Newton defended the Department's actions, asserting that there was no requirement under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA) to disclose witnesses in advance. She argued that the department had not rested its case and that the introduction of Dr. Fisher was both reasonable and relevant. The back-and-forth highlighted a fundamental disagreement over procedural norms and the expectations of both parties in the hearing process.

As the discussion unfolded, the panel sought clarity on whether proper notification had been given regarding Dr. Fisher's involvement. The tension in the room underscored the high stakes of the hearing, where the integrity of the process was being scrutinized. The outcome of this hearing could have significant implications for Dr. Flanagan's practice and reputation.

The meeting concluded with unresolved questions about the fairness of the proceedings and the potential impact of the newly introduced witness. As the panel deliberates, the case remains a focal point for discussions on administrative fairness and the rights of practitioners within the health department's regulatory framework. The hearing serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in legal and administrative processes, where every detail can influence the outcome.