Medical board approves two consent orders, department withdraws one petition

The Connecticut Medical Examining Board on a roll-call vote approved two consent orders resolving allegations about prescribing, supervision and record-keeping for two practitioners and accepted a Department of Public Health withdrawal of a separate matter.

The actions affect Jordan Marcoux and Dr. Fales (pronounced “Veil”), and the department withdrew petition number 2023-262 in a separate matter that will be refiled.

Board members said the orders impose disciplinary sanctions intended to protect patients while allowing monitored practice. The orders include civil penalties, probationary periods and coursework requirements tied to controlled-substance prescribing and documentation.

Attorney Rose Fezzina, DPH counsel, summarized the proposed order for Jordan Marcoux and said: “The proposed consent order includes a reprimand, a $5,000 civil penalty, and a 2‑year probationary period, which requires coursework in prescribing opioids and documentation that has to be 21 CEUs and preapproved by the department. It also requires quarterly written reports from his supervising physician during the probation.” Fezzina told the board the investigation covered roughly September 2020 through January 6, 2022, and included allegations that Mr. Marcoux practiced with a delegation agreement that did not adequately describe how the supervising physician would review or approve Schedule II and III controlled‑substance prescriptions. The order also referenced alleged failures to assess some pain‑management patients, to document alternative therapies, and, in one case, to check the state prescription monitoring program (PMP) before prescribing.

Attorney Jonathan Hamilton, representing the respondent, said his client had “acknowledged some of those deficiencies” and that the practice had been compliant since the investigation began.

Roll-call on the Marcoux consent order recorded approvals from the majority of members present and at least two abstentions; one member did not participate in the vote due to perceived agency involvement in the investigation. The board chair declared the consent order approved.

On the Fales (Veil) matter, DPH counsel described allegations spanning 2019–2022 that included failures to check the PMP before prescribing, inappropriate prescribing for family members and others, and a claim that in April 2022 the respondent obtained oxycodone‑acetaminophen from a patient for personal use. Attorney Fezzina said the proposed consent order for Dr. Fales would impose a reprimand, a $7,500 civil penalty and a one‑year probation that includes coursework and a department‑approved practice monitor to review records for patients receiving Schedule III–V prescriptions longer than 30 days. Fezzina said that if Dr. Fales later obtains approval to prescribe Schedule II controlled substances, the probationary monitoring requirement would be reinstated or extended to cover Schedule II prescriptions for more than 30 days.

Attorney Jonathan Bechtel, representing Dr. Fales, told the board the physician had contracted COVID‑19 and later experienced long COVID symptoms that affected his practice during the period under review but that Dr. Fales has recognized the issues and is prepared to comply with the consent order.

The board approved the Fales consent order by roll call; one board member recused because their agency was involved in the matter.

Separately, the department asked the board to allow withdrawal of a proposed consent order in petition number 2023‑262 (Doctor Sondergaard’s matter) because DPH had not yet finalized a term related to practice supervision. DPH counsel said the department would withdraw the filing for this meeting and resubmit a corrected consent order at a later date. The chair accepted that procedural request and the department formally withdrew petition 2023‑262.

Why this matters: The consent orders tie disciplinary sanctions (penalties, probation and monitored practice) to deficiencies in supervision, PMP checks and documentation tied to controlled substances. Board members asked for follow up on related supervisory investigations and emphasized the need for DPH to complete outstanding inquiries.

The board recorded the formal actions on the record and said DPH and the practitioners would carry out the monitoring and reporting required by the orders. The withdrawn petition will be resubmitted when DPH completes its revisions.