Dispute at state hearing over who requested nursing-home discharge appeal, and which agency has jurisdiction

A dispute over who filed an appeal and which state agency has authority stalled a Department of Public Health hearing on Sept. 23, 2025, after attorneys for the family and the nursing home differed about whether the appeal was filed by the residents' counsel or initiated by the facility.

The disagreement centers on a 30-day discharge notice that Masonicare issued on June 4 and an appeal that one Department official said was dated June 13, 2025. Attorney Santoro, representing the residents, said, "Neither my clients nor their father requested this hearing," while Beverly Bright, who identified herself as "the director of social work here at Masonic," said Masonicare issued the 30-day notice but does not have the authority to file the appeal: "We don't have the ability to request that appeal. Ours is to issue the 30 day notice. And that's where our involvement stopped."

Attorney Brown, representing Masonicare, challenged the hearing's placement with the Department of Public Health and cited statute "19a-535," saying hearings challenging a nursing-home discharge "need to be commenced with the Department of Social Services." Brown also noted the timing: the discharge notice on record was issued June 4 and the hearing was taking place on Sept. 23, which Brown said is "well beyond the 60 day period." Brown called it "incredibly unusual" for a nursing home to request an appeal of its own discharge notice.

A Department official, identified in the hearing as Hempstead, said he would provide counsel with the appeal document his office received. "The appeal that my office received was dated 06/13/2025, and it was sent to my office by your clients," Hempstead said. He then temporarily recessed the proceeding: "We'll take a 5 minute break, and I'm going to have my paralegal send you the appeal that my office received so you both can review it." The hearing was put off the record for the break.

Discussion in the session included three distinct points: whether the appeal was filed by the residents or initiated by the facility; whether the Department of Public Health or the Department of Social Services is the correct agency under the cited statute; and whether the timing of the hearing falls outside the 60-day window Brown described. No formal decision or ruling on jurisdiction was recorded before the break; the only formal action taken on the record was the temporary recess and the commitment by Hempstead to provide the appeal document to counsel for review.

Next steps described on the record were procedural: Hempstead's office will send the appeal to counsel and the hearing will resume after counsel reviews that document. The transcript does not record a subsequent ruling on jurisdiction, dismissal, or other final action.

Why this matters: The agency that has authority and whether filing and timing rules were followed will determine where the residents' challenge to the discharge proceeds and whether any hearing held by the Department of Public Health can proceed on the merits.