State health department hearing deems allegations admitted after aesthetician fails to appear

A Department of Public Health administrative hearing on May 14, 2025, in petition number 2025-310 resulted in Hearing Officer Stacy Shulman granting the department’s oral motion to deem the allegations against licensed aesthetician Chatoya Lewis admitted after Lewis failed to appear, Shulman said during the session.

The action followed entry into the record of the statement of charges dated April 28, 2025; a prelicensure consent order notarized July 23, 2024, and approved July 26, 2024; a motion for summary suspension filed April 29, 2025; and a summary suspension order issued May 1, 2025. Shulman also noted the department’s certified mailing to Lewis’s last known address was tracked as delivered May 7, 2025, in Hartford, Connecticut.

"Attorney Nanny Jr., staff attorney for the Department of Public Health, moved to deem all the allegations admitted as respondent has not appeared or filed an answer to the statement of charges," Shulman said, reading the motion into the record. Shulman granted the department’s motion, citing sufficient notice and due process.

Attorney Nanny Jr. told the hearing that the department’s exhibits include probation and pending-case records showing that Lewis had been convicted previously and placed on supervised criminal probation as part of a prelicensure consent order. The department’s exhibits, Nanny said, also showed subsequent arrests and that the probation officers reported Lewis was no longer under supervised probation while criminal cases were pending. "Based on the evidence showing respondent’s subsequent arrests ... the department would recommend revocation," Nanny said.

Lorraine Walker, the department paralegal, confirmed the office had not received returned first-class mail and had no email bouncebacks for the notice packet. The packet entered as an exhibit included the notice of hearing, the summary suspension order, and the statement of charges.

The department stated it had received information from Lewis that she had not practiced as an aesthetician since signing the consent order but said it had no independent confirmation. The hearing record does not contain a final revocation order; the transcript records the hearing officer accepting the department’s opening and closing statements and closing the matter at about 10:26 a.m.

No witnesses were presented. The hearing officer read and admitted department exhibits 1–16 (investigative report, monitor affidavit, prelicensure consent order, probation communications, notices of noncompliance, investigative questions and responses, and pending case details) into the record before granting the motion. The department’s recommendation for revocation was recorded in the hearing but the transcript does not show a subsequent written order revoking the license.

The hearing began after a short delay; the session was scheduled to start at 10 a.m. and the record shows proceedings beginning at about 10:11 a.m. and closing at about 10:26 a.m. The department indicated the matter would proceed on the basis of the admitted allegations and the submitted exhibits.