Connecticut board revokes podiatrist Shane Reynolds’ license after finding cocaine use and practicing while impaired

Connecticut’s Department of Public Health licensing board voted to revoke the podiatry license of Dr. Shane Reynolds after finding he abused cocaine and practiced while impaired between Sept. 3 and Sept. 30, 2024, board members said during a disciplinary hearing.

The board found multiple charges in the department’s statement of charges to be true, citing testimony from a physician witness and the respondent’s own statements and drug test results. The department had asked the board to revoke Reynolds’ license; the board discussed alternatives — including suspension, probation with monitoring or treatment, or civil penalties — before voting to revoke.

The board began fact finding by reading each allegation from the department’s amended statement of charges, which cited provisions of Connecticut law and described alleged conduct from 2023 through 2024. A board member stated, “We find that charge to be true,” after hearing testimony that the respondent admitted use and after reference to a positive drug test and investigative findings. The board identified, among the findings, that from approximately Sept. 3, 2024, through Sept. 30, 2024, Reynolds “practiced podiatry while impaired” and neglected multiple patients by failing to complete treatment plans, prescriptions and medical records.

Dr. Shane Reynolds, the respondent, addressed the board before the fact-finding and acknowledged substance use. Reynolds said he “regret[s] my decision” and described having entered a rehabilitation program, saying, “I made sure that I did my my own rehabilitation by going to this, rehab center, for my 1 time use.” He asked the board to consider rehabilitation and monitoring rather than revocation.

Board members discussed the range of disciplinary options available under state law. One board member summarized that revocation is not necessarily permanent: “Yes. Fortunately, we do work in a state in which persons who are revoked, they can come back and seek reinstatement of their license after providing sufficient evidence that they are safe to practice.”

After discussion, a board member moved that the board “agree with the attorney Newton for the department and proceed with revocation.” Another board member seconded the motion. The chair then called the vote; members present responded verbally in the affirmative and the board recorded the revocation.

The board closed fact finding and the record. Board staff confirmed that follow-up correspondence would be sent to Reynolds at the address he provided for the department and that he could contact attorney Newton with questions about the process.

The board cited Connecticut General Statutes in its findings and remedy discussion; the department had relied on its investigation, testimony from a physician witness and the respondent’s admissions and drug test results when seeking revocation.