DPH hearing panel deems allegations admitted and revokes nurse Vivian D. Crozdahl’s Connecticut authorization

The Connecticut Department of Public Health hearing board on Feb. 19, 2025 deemed allegations against nurse Vivian Doreen Crozdahl admitted and voted to revoke her authorization to practice after the department presented evidence that Crozdahl had not completed required program hours and clinical training.

The board heard the department’s evidentiary proffer and procedural testimony establishing that Crozdahl had been served with notice of the hearing. Brett Moody, a hearing-office staff member, testified that the notice of hearing dated Feb. 5, 2025, was mailed to 461 Bedford Avenue, Mount Vernon, N.Y., and sent by email; the certified-mail tracking number cited in the record ends in 3075 and shows USPS facility handling and an attempted delivery on Feb. 10, 2025. Attorney Joelle Newton, appearing for the Department of Public Health, said the department’s case included an investigative report, an affidavit from Cheryl Stanley (with attachments, some pages under seal), a nursing program outline, the respondent’s written response, and Connecticut licensure records.

After the board accepted the department’s exhibits into the record and Moody’s testimony on notice, Attorney Newton asked the board to “deem allegations admitted.” Lisa Freeman moved to deem the allegations admitted for petition number 2024-288; Mary (surname not provided) seconded. The board took a roll call vote and recorded ayes from board members Cindy, Sal, Mary, Lisa Freeman, Camille and Chair Gina Reiner; Elizabeth was absent. The motion carried and the allegations were deemed admitted.

With the allegations deemed admitted, the board then moved to enter findings on the charges. Board member Cindy moved that the board find on all charges; Mary seconded. The transcript records that the statement of charges was discussed as containing nine allegations (the record also contains an earlier, advisory reference to eight charges). The board voted by roll call to find on the charges, with the same members voting aye.

For remedy, Department counsel recommended revocation, arguing the record shows the respondent “did not complete the required program hours and the clinical training necessary to be a nurse” and therefore posed a danger to public health and safety if allowed to continue practicing. Cindy moved for revocation as the remedy; Mary seconded. The board took a roll call and recorded ayes from Cindy, Sal, Mary, Lisa Freeman, Camille and Chair Gina Reiner; the motion to revoke passed.

The record includes the department’s investigative report and related exhibits (department exhibits 1–5 as described on the record), and board exhibits used to show notice (board exhibits 1–4). The board did not state an effective date for the revocation on the public record during the hearing transcripts provided; no appeal or post‑decision procedures were announced on the record in this segment.

The hearing record reflects that the department sought revocation on the basis that Crozdahl’s educational record and clinical-hours documentation were incomplete. The board’s actions on Feb. 19 were: (1) to deem the allegations admitted, (2) to enter findings on the charges, and (3) to revoke the respondent’s authorization. The transcript does not record any votes against, abstentions, or conditions attached to the revocation motion, nor an effective date for the revocation.