Hearing officer admits testing and chain-of-custody documents into record in Finkelstein appeal

The hearing officer at a Connecticut Department of Public Health panel admitted a set of exhibits into the record on Feb. 26, 2025, in the appeal of Shalomo Finkelstein v. City of Hartford, and swore a subpoenaed witness from Assured Decontamination Services.

The records admitted included chain-of-custody documents, a WIPE analysis, company correspondence and a laboratory affidavit verifying test results from EMLS. The hearing officer said one item "was entered into the record as an appellant exhibit, and that was by mistake. It should be entered into the record as a local health exhibit." The panel reclassified and entered the documents accordingly.

Why this matters: the documents admitted will be part of the evidentiary record the panel uses to resolve Finkelstein's appeal of the Oct. 16, 2024 notice of violation. The laboratory affidavit and chain-of-custody records are central to questions about how samples were collected, handled and tested.

Most of the procedural activity at the start of the session involved confirming which documents would be part of the official record. The hearing officer entered the original notice of continued hearing as record exhibit 4, a City of Hartford request for continuance dated Feb. 24, 2025 as record exhibit 5, and the ruling that rescheduled the hearing as record exhibit 6. The panel also confirmed that documents previously described at an earlier hearing would instead be classified as local health exhibits: the chain of custody and WIPE analysis were already entered as local health exhibits 6 and 8; an internal chain-of-custody record dated Oct. 14, 2024 was entered as local health exhibit 9; and an EMLS affidavit verifying test results was entered as local health exhibit 10.

Appellant-submitted materials were placed into the record as well. The panel entered an email from Victoria Nieves dated Jan. 2, 2025 as appellant exhibit D, the appellant's paramedic license as appellant exhibit E, and website information from Assured Decontamination Services as appellant exhibit F. The hearing officer and counsel discussed that some documents were duplicative of previously entered items; counsel and staff confirmed delivery of electronic copies to the panel's mailbox at phh0.dph@ct.gov.

Attorney Osborne, representing the City of Hartford, told the panel he had subpoenaed records from Assured Decontamination Services and from EMLS and presented those records as business records from the producing entities. Appellant counsel raised no objection to admitting the EMLS affidavit verifying test results after receiving and reviewing the document the night before.

The panel then swore Jerry Sullivan (who said he goes by Jay), owner of Assured Decontamination Services, as a subpoenaed witness. Sullivan identified his location as Minneapolis, Minnesota and confirmed he had been subpoenaed. Technical difficulties affected video and audio at times; the record shows counsel confirmed Sullivan had been sworn and that his testimony would be recorded.

The hearing officer directed counsel to forward any outstanding exhibits to the panel's official inbox so staff could formally attach the items to the record. There were no formal votes recorded in the transcript; all contested matters recorded in the excerpt concern admission and classification of documentary evidence and the swearing of a witness.

The hearing will continue with testimony and argument based on the admitted exhibits and sworn witnesses, as the panel moves to resolve the appeal of the Oct. 16, 2024 notice of violation.