Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discharge Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing officer dismisses resident’s discharge appeal as untimely
Summary
A Connecticut Department of Public Health hearing officer dismissed a resident’s appeal of a discharge notice on July 10, 2025, finding the appeal filed 11 days after the facility’s notice was outside the 10‑day statutory appeal window.
Hearing officer Aiden Baum of the Connecticut Department of Public Health dismissed a resident’s appeal of a discharge notice on July 10, 2025, after concluding the appeal was filed outside the 10‑day period allowed under the statute cited during the hearing.
Baum said the hearing was being held pursuant to section 19a‑535a of the Connecticut General Statutes and that the facility must prove by a preponderance of the evidence it complied with that statute. "This hearing is being held pursuant to section 19 a 5 35 a of the general statutes," Baum said at the start of the proceeding.
The hearing record shows the facility’s written discharge notice is dated June 19, 2025, and the appeal submitted by the resident, identified in the record as Mr. Slabinski, is dated June 30, 2025. Baum said he counted 11 days between those dates and that the statute provides a 10‑day appeal window. "I can't move forward on this because I just don't have jurisdiction to act," he told the parties, and he said the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was untimely.
The discharge letter entered into the record states the facility named in the notice (identified in the letter text as "Car Home for the Aged Incorporated") considered the June 19, 2025, notice formal and listed an effective discharge date of July 19, 2025, for failure to meet financial obligations. Baum said the letter also informed the resident of the 10‑day right to request a hearing under the statute.
Baum told the unrepresented resident that he would provide procedural help with questions during the hearing and permitted the resident to testify in narrative form. After determining he lacked jurisdiction due to the timing of the appeal, Baum said the appeal would be dismissed and that the parties would receive a mailing reflecting that administrative disposition within a few days. He directed the parties to confer off the record about next steps and then closed the record and stopped the recording.
No formal motion, vote, or further administrative ruling on the merits of the discharge was made at the hearing. Baum said the discharge notice would remain effective because there was no timely appeal pending.
Parties seeking clarification or information about the discharge or next procedural steps were told to consult with the facility representative, Dawn Baehke, and await the Department’s mailed notice of the dismissal.
