A hearing officer for the Connecticut Department of Public Health on July 31, 2025, told staff at the Card Home for the Aged that the facility’s involuntary discharge notice for a resident identified in the hearing as Mr. Slavinski was legally deficient under Conn. Gen. Stat. §19a-535a and indicated the resident’s appeal was likely to be sustained; the facility withdrew the notice and said it would resubmit a corrected notice.

The ruling matters because state law requires specific notice content and a discharge plan tailored to a resident’s individual needs. Hearing officer Aiden Baum said he could not find required elements in the documents the facility submitted and that several formal notice requirements were missing or ambiguous.

Baum, who presided remotely and identified the statutory standard that the facility must prove compliance by a preponderance of the evidence, flagged multiple deficiencies in the facility’s paperwork. He pointed to inconsistent dates between copies of the discharge letter — one copy in the record was dated June 19, 2025, while the version the facility said it placed in the resident’s mailbox was dated July 24, 2025 — and said that inconsistency “calls into question the reliability of the documents.” He also said the notice did not clearly include the resident’s right to legal counsel as required by the statute and described the discharge plan as “wholly inadequate” because it lacked information about the resident’s individual needs.

The hearing officer further questioned an ambiguous effective date in the notice, which read “on or before August 24,” asking whether that phrasing could allow an immediate discharge. He said he did not have evidence that the discharge presented an imminent danger to the resident’s life or safety. Baum told the facility it had two options: withdraw and resubmit a notice that complies with the statutory requirements or wait for a written decision from the hearing office; the hearing officer estimated a delay of about two weeks because he would be out of the office.

During the proceeding facility staff acknowledged timing and delivery issues. Dawn Bakke, a facility staff member who testified, said she “handed it or put it in his mailbox, last Thursday,” referring to the July 24, 2025 dated copy she said was provided to the resident. Bakke said she had scanned documents to the hearing office and the ombudsman earlier in the week.

The resident said he had not received certain materials in time and described difficulty reviewing the packet. “I’m dyslexic. I never had kids to look at this, and they could have given me this days ago,” he said, adding that receiving the documents at the hearing felt “overwhelming.” He also told the hearing that many of the incident reports the facility relies on were false and that this was the eighth time the facility had attempted to discharge him.

Other specific deficiencies cited by Baum included an incorrect spelling of the long‑term care ombudsman’s name in the notice and a wrong ombudsman email address where one was provided, a missing entrance agreement that would show the resident’s contracted monthly rate, and a lack of documentation showing the arrearage amount the facility alleged. Facility staff said the state had approved assistance for two months of arrears but that the resident owed six months; the hearing officer noted he had not seen documentation to verify the arrearage amount at that stage of the proceeding.

After the hearing the facility representative — identified as Don Bacchi, representing the Card Home for the Aged and described in the record as the interim administrator — said the facility would resubmit the discharge notice. Bakke confirmed on the record, “Yes. I’ll resubmit everything.” The hearing officer instructed the parties to consult Conn. Gen. Stat. §19a-535a, particularly subsections (b), (c) and (d), and reminded facility staff that any material submitted to the Public Health Hearing Office must also be provided to the resident in advance of a hearing so the resident has an opportunity to review it.

The hearing was adjourned without a final written order; Baum said he would issue an order after further review if the facility did not withdraw and reissue a compliant notice.

Documentation entered into the record included the discharge letter(s), an emailed appeal dated July 25, 2025, a notice of hearing dated July 28, 2025, a Willimantic police report dated July 8, 2025, multiple staff narratives and an arrearage statement dated July 1, 2025. At the end of the session Bakke confirmed the facility would prepare and send a corrected notice.