Hearing officer orders briefs after attorneys dispute whether ombudsman filed appeal

A hearing officer at a Department of Public Health public hearing office proceeding entered two exhibits and directed both sides to brief jurisdictional issues after attorneys disputed whether the ombudsman's office authored and filed an appeal and whether the appeal was filed in the correct agency.

The hearing officer said he would “enter in 2 exhibits on behalf of the Department of Public Health. Exhibit 1 is going to be the email from Stacy Larrabee to the Department of Public Health dated 06/13/2025, and exhibit 2 is going to be the appeal that was attached to that email,” and set a briefing schedule. “I'd like the the jurisdictional issue briefed by both counsel,” the hearing officer said, adding that briefs would be due “on or before October 10.” Counsel were instructed to submit briefs by 5:00 p.m. via the identified email address.

The procedural dispute centered on whether the ombudsman's office initiated the appeal and whether this office has subject-matter jurisdiction. Attorney Santoro urged the hearing officer to require testimony or evidence from Stacy Larrabee of the ombudsman's office, saying, “I think we need evidence from, miss Larrabee as to why this was the why this was the place and what was the basis, for submitting this request.” Santoro argued the ombudsman's office was an “integral part” of the proceeding and an essential party for a full adjudication.

Attorney Brown countered that the written request he had reviewed made no reference to the ombudsman's office and said the parties' email records did not clearly support Santoro's assertion. “I don't see anything referencing the ombudsperson in that letter, that was sent from, miss Walker,” Brown said. Brown told the hearing officer the document he was examining was dated June 13 and was signed electronically by Heather Gaududi and another daughter with power of attorney.

Brown and other counsel also argued the appeal may be in the wrong forum. Brown pointed to a statutory citation cited in the hearing—identified in the transcript as “19A 5 35”—and said it “plainly states, hearings need to be submitted to the Department of Social Services,” framing that as a subject-matter jurisdiction issue that could require dismissal if the statutory process was not followed.

Counsel also identified email metadata: one attorney noted two emails arriving at 9:47 a.m. and 9:50 a.m., and said the Word document properties showed Stacy Larrabee as the author and last modifier. Larrabee herself informed participants via email that she would not participate in the day's proceeding, counsel said.

The hearing officer did not rule on jurisdiction or on dismissal during the session. Instead, he admitted the two exhibits into the record and ordered written jurisdictional briefs from both parties, due Oct. 10 by 5 p.m. The hearing was then adjourned.

Background: The dispute concerns who properly initiated an appeal and which state agency should adjudicate it. The transcript records competing views over whether the ombudsman's office authored and filed the appeal and whether Connecticut law requires such appeals to be filed with the Department of Social Services rather than the Department of Public Health. No final adjudication on jurisdiction was made at this session.