STAMFORD/REMOTE — At a Sept. 16, 2025, administrative hearing before the Connecticut Department of Public Health’s Board of Examiners for Nursing, Attorney Joelle Newton, representing the department, said the agency is asking that registered nurse Angel Predzymerski’s license be revoked for repeated violations of prior board orders and a positive drug test.

The request followed the department’s presentation of monitoring materials and prior board memoranda that, the department says, document Predzymerski’s repeated noncompliance with conditions placed on her license after earlier disciplinary orders. Levita Sukram, the department’s monitoring nurse, testified that she prepared monitoring reports and an affidavit submitted as department exhibits.

Attorney Joelle Newton for the department summarized the department’s position in her opening: “The department is asking that her license be revoked.” Newton said the department’s case rests on a history of board actions and more recent alleged violations, including a urine screen that the department reported was positive for opiates, cocaine and/or nonmedical marijuana on April 25, 2025, and missed monitoring reports and missed random urine screens in May 2025.

The department entered several documents into the record, including a statement of charges and a motion for summary suspension dated June 10, 2025; a summary suspension order dated June 18, 2025, signed by board chair Gina Reiners; earlier memoranda of decision in petition numbers 2020-122, 2023-569 and 2024-166; and a sealed investigative and monitoring file. The hearing officer also accepted three respondent exhibits: a two-page letter from Daniel Delong, a letter from Veronica E. Taylor, RN, and a two-page letter from Megan Sette.

Predzymerski, who was sworn and identified herself for the record, denied several allegations. When asked point by point about the statement of charges she repeatedly said she denied the department’s characterization and explained her account. Predzymerski said she “did have a medical marijuana card,” that in the most recent matter she “smoked nonmedical marijuana” provided by a visitor around Easter and that she believes that use explains the positive test. She told the hearing: “I deny that,” in response to the department’s allegation that she abused opiates or cocaine.

Predzymerski also acknowledged she did not cause submission of certain employer and provider reports the department requested for May 2025 and that she missed two random urine screens in May because she said she was out of work and “cannot afford the drug screens.” She told the hearing she recently enrolled in and is completing an intensive outpatient program (IOP) and said, “I’m done with my IOP program actually this week. My last day is October 3.”

Sukram testified about her role as the monitoring nurse and confirmed she prepared department exhibit 1 (the investigative/monitoring report) and department exhibit 2 (an affidavit). The hearing record shows the department’s monitoring materials were submitted under seal in part.

The hearing record also reflects a procedural exchange in which the hearing officer asked Predzymerski for formal admissions or denials to each numbered allegation in the statement of charges; Predzymerski repeatedly denied the charges, while acknowledging the board had issued prior orders placing her license on probation in 2022, 2023 and 2024 and that those orders required abstinence from alcohol and drugs, random observed urine screens and submission of therapy and employer reports.

The hearing moved into executive session during Sukram’s testimony to discuss protected health information; no final board decision or vote appears in the portion of the transcript reviewed. The department’s request for revocation was made in opening; the transcript does not record any final disposition or ruling.

The hearing officer presided over the record-taking and accepted exhibits from both sides. Further proceedings or the board’s final decision were not recorded in the transcript provided.

What happened next: the transcript ends with the hearing entering executive session to discuss protected health information; no decision on the department’s revocation request is recorded in the excerpt provided.