DPH continues hearing for nurse Juliet Cole after confirming exhibits; license lapse raised

The Connecticut Department of Public Health hearing on Feb. 19, 2025 continued the matter of respondent Juliet Cole (petition 2024-657) after the board marked a series of board and respondent exhibits as full exhibits and scheduled further proceedings for 1:00 p.m. The board confirmed that Cole was present via video and that she had received the emailed exhibits.

Assistant Attorney General Alina Bricklin Goldstein, advising the board, summarized the matter’s procedural history, noting prior hearing days on Aug. 7 and Nov. 20, 2024, and that the department had previously marked certain exhibits. The board moved to mark department exhibit 2 as a full exhibit (counsel had represented on Nov. 20 that Cole had no objection), and to mark board exhibits 20 through 29 as full exhibits for the record. Respondent exhibits were also marked: Respondent Exhibit A (a July 9, 2024 letter purportedly from Elizabeth Cutter, director of nursing at Stonington Institute) and Respondent Exhibit 2 (an email from Chris Landy at Mass Medical Staffing dated July 12, 2024) were admitted without objection.

Cole confirmed she was present and on video and that she had no additional exhibits. Attorney Linda Fazina (respondent’s counsel) and Ms. Cole discussed exhibit delivery: Ms. Cole said she had received board exhibits 1–23 and later confirmed receipt of the most recent email with exhibits 28 and 29 after hearing-office staff resent them.

During preliminary matters, Attorney Fazina told the board she had checked Cole’s licensure status and reported that Cole’s nursing license had lapsed for nonrenewal since the charges and summary-suspension motion were filed. Fazina referenced Connecticut statutory authority in the record when discussing the board’s jurisdiction (the transcript records the citation as “Connecticut general statutes 19 a-14 a” and earlier as 19 a-10 and 19 a-14). Assistant Attorney General Bricklin Goldstein told the board she would review the statute and advise the board whether the lapse affected jurisdiction or required the board to take notice of the licensure website; Bricklin Goldstein also noted that the board could call a witness (for example, the liaison who has access to the licensing database) if the respondent intended to offer evidence about licensure status.

The board agreed to proceed with respondent exhibits and to resume marking the board exhibits after the lunch break to give Cole and counsel time to review exhibits 20–29. The panel recessed for lunch and scheduled the hearing to continue at 1:00 p.m.

No final rulings on the underlying statement of charges in Cole’s case were made in this portion of the transcript. The board logged extensive documentary exhibits (board exhibits 20–29, respondent exhibits A and 2, and the earlier department exhibits) into the record for further consideration at the resumed hearing.