Hearing officer reviews Massick Memorial’s discharge of resident William Brown; appellant absent

A hearing officer presiding over the appeal by resident William Brown of his June 20, 2025 notice of discharge from Massick Memorial Home reviewed facility evidence and took testimony from facility staff at a July 8, 2025 administrative hearing; Brown did not appear.

The facility’s manager, Marilee McPheeeters, and assistant manager Frances Dodd testified that Brown’s behavior had escalated since his return in March 2025, describing ongoing drug use, confrontational and intimidating conduct toward staff, visitors associated with drug activity, and two earlier incident reports from 2024. The hearing officer entered into the record the facility’s notice of discharge, Brown’s appeal and signed filings showing he received notice of the hearing, plus facility exhibits including incident reports, photos of drug paraphernalia and a hunting knife, billing ledgers and emails with an ombudsperson.

Why this matters: administrative hearings are the forum for determining whether a facility’s discharge of a resident complies with applicable procedures and statutory standards; the record the hearing officer accepted will be the basis for a written decision.

Marilee McPheeeters, the facility’s manager, testified that she hand-delivered the notice of hearing and that Brown signed an attached notice of submissions acknowledging receipt. She said staff had tried to engage Brown in treatment but that he refused most services: “He only goes for med management,” McPheeeters said. She told the hearing officer that Brown “skips most” of his prescribed medications and refused a physician appointment arranged by staff.

McPheeeters described recent behavior she said made staff and managers feel unsafe: she told the hearing officer she would not “feel safe in my own home with this man on our property at this point,” and that Brown had come to her private home and “banged on the door.” She said dealers had been “driving by our house” and staff had been left “visibly shaken.”

Assistant manager Frances Dodd corroborated McPheeeters’ account of aggressive and threatening posturing. Dodd said staff had at times retreated from common areas and that the facility had begun considering schedule changes so two staffers would be on every shift because employees were uncomfortable working alone overnight.

Facility exhibits identified and entered into the record included a statement by McPheeeters (facility exhibit 1); the resident agreement and acknowledgement (facility exhibits 2 and 2a); a signed notice of discharge receipt (facility exhibit 3); the facility discharge plan (facility exhibit 4); a current ledger and invoice through July 2025 (facility exhibit 5); incident reports dated 08/30/2024 and 11/12/2024 and related photos of alleged drug paraphernalia and a hunting knife (facility exhibits 6, 6a, 6b, 6c); state forms and proof-of-payment requests (facility exhibits 7A/7B); and email correspondence with ombudsperson Kiomara Cruz (facility exhibit 8). The signed notice of submissions acknowledging Brown’s receipt of the hearing notice was entered as record exhibit 4.

On finances, McPheeeters said the facility has not received payments from the State of Connecticut on Brown’s behalf and provided a ledger showing a total amount due. McPheeeters gave a total loss figure of $25,667.66, describing Brown’s own unpaid portion as $1,424.80 and the state portion as $24,243.86; earlier in the hearing the ledger was read as showing $24,242.86 as the state portion.

The facility described efforts to obtain services for Brown, including enrollment in a drug treatment program and one-on-one therapy through Connecticut Health Resources (CHR). McPheeeters and Dodd said Brown had initially participated in treatment earlier but relapsed after returning to the facility; McPheeeters said staff had contacted CHR and reported Brown’s refusal to participate in intensive therapy.

The appellant, William Brown, did not appear. Hearing officer Schulman told the facility that because Brown was the moving party, the record and any testimony the facility provided would be considered and that the burden of proof for the removal rested with the facility. Schulman said he would review the submitted materials and might have follow-up questions before issuing a decision.

No formal written decision was announced at the hearing; the hearing officer indicated he would prepare a decision based on the record. The hearing transcript shows the exchange and the exhibits the officer accepted into evidence; the matter remains pending a written determination.