Connecticut nursing board hears reinstatement petition for Katie Ann Martins; moves into executive session to review sealed medical records

The Connecticut Board of Examiners for Nursing held a reinstatement hearing on May 20 for Katie Ann Martins, LPN, who petitioned to restore a license revoked in 2019. The board voted to move into executive session to review sealed medical records and other sensitive evidence; it took no final action on reinstatement during the public meeting.

The board must be satisfied under Connecticut General Statute 19a-17(e) that an applicant ‘‘is able to practice with reasonable skill and safety’’ before reinstating a revoked license. Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Bannon explained that statutory standard to the board members before proceedings began.

Martins spoke in her own defense and described treatment and monitoring since her license was revoked. "I have been through a lot and, clean and sober now and, close coming up on a year," she told the board. Martins said she had a liver transplant, is participating in outpatient treatment and regular monitoring, and has negative blood and urine testing recorded in documents she submitted to the board.

Department counsel, represented by Attorney Linda Fizzina for the Department of Public Health, said the department remains concerned about Martins’ prior, extensive history of substance use and noted the board previously denied a reinstatement petition. Fizzina told members the department would not support unconditional reinstatement and flagged that Martins has been out of active clinical practice for more than five years since the 2019 revocation.

Board and department exhibits were entered for the record, including two board documents (the reinstatement request and the hearing notice), multiple petitioner exhibits from Martins (treatment letters, outpatient attendance logs, urine and blood testing records), and department exhibits including a memorandum of decision and excerpts of medical records. Several clinical records were entered under seal; board counsel advised redacting direct identifiers such as dates of birth before public posting.

After attorney Fazina stated the department wished to ask questions that would rely on sealed medical records, the board voted on a motion to proceed into executive session. The board took the motion and, on a roll-call vote, all members present voted to enter executive session for the purpose of reviewing protected health information; the board then moved to private deliberations. No further public action or vote on the reinstatement was recorded in the meeting transcript.

The board’s next steps are to review the sealed exhibits and executive-session testimony and then to reconvene publicly to announce any decision or conditions for reinstatement if one is granted. The transcript does not show a date for a final decision or whether the board will schedule follow-up testimony.