Johnson Home withdraws discharge notice after DPH hearing finds paperwork noncompliant with 19a-535a

A hearing officer for the Connecticut Department of Public Health ruled on procedural compliance at a Jan. 14, 2025 virtual hearing and the administrator of Johnson Home withdrew a notice of intent to discharge resident Gail Eggleston after the facility failed to provide a required discharge plan within the statutory timeframe.

Aiden Baum, hearing officer for the Connecticut Department of Public Health, opened the public hearing by identifying the case as a challenge to a discharge notice issued to Gail Eggleston on Dec. 30, 2024, and cited Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-535a as the governing statute. Baum told participants the facility bore the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it complied with the statute’s notice and discharge-plan requirements.

The hearing officer reviewed documentary exhibits submitted by both sides, including the facility’s notice of intent to discharge dated Dec. 30, 2024, an appeal filed by Eggleston on Jan. 6, 2025, facility care-plan documents dated Dec. 10, 2024, photographs dated Dec. 28, 2024, and a letter from the facility administrator dated Dec. 27, 2024. The appellant’s physician provided a letter dated Jan. 13, 2025 that was also admitted into the record and sealed for medical privacy.

Baum read the statutory discharge-plan requirement aloud and focused on subsection (c), which requires that "a discharge plan prepared by the facility . . . shall be submitted to the resident not later than 7 days after the notice of transfer or discharge is issued to the resident." He noted the notice in this case was signed on Dec. 30, 2024, and that the care-plan packet the facility identified as the subsection (c) discharge plan was handed to Eggleston on Jan. 13, 2025 — 13 days after the notice was provided. Baum said that placed the facility out of compliance with the timing requirement.

Dawn Murphy, administrator of Johnson Home, acknowledged the timing error during the hearing and said, "This is the only thing I keep forgetting to do is the 7 days prior. This is killing me. Alright. We'll withdraw, and then I will redo all this again today." Baum offered the facility two options: he would issue an order finding the discharge-plan requirement had not been met, or the facility could withdraw the notice and refile with documents presented in compliance with the statute. Murphy chose to withdraw the notice.

Baum did not issue a final order finding the discharge valid or invalid at the hearing. Instead, he adjourned the proceeding after Murphy said the facility would resubmit the notice and accompanying discharge plan in a form and on a timeline that conforms with Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-535a and directed that any resubmitted materials be provided to the resident and, where applicable, uploaded or emailed as required for future hearings.

The hearing record shows the facility uploaded the Dec. 30 notice to the state long-term care ombudsman portal on the same day it was provided to the resident, and that Eggleston filed a timely appeal on Jan. 6, 2025. The documents the facility intends to rely on for a future filing include: house rules (June 13, 2023); fire drill evaluations (Feb. 12, 2024, and Dec. 1, 2024); photographs of the resident’s bedroom (Dec. 28, 2024); a care plan (Dec. 10, 2024); and a letter describing reasons for discharge signed Jan. 6, 2025. A medical exhibit provided by the appellant’s physician on Jan. 13, 2025 was admitted and sealed.

No formal order was issued at the Jan. 14 hearing. The transcript reflects that the facility withdrew the Dec. 30 notice and will issue a new notice accompanied by a discharge plan that meets the timing requirement; the hearing was adjourned to allow the facility to refile in compliance with the statute.