Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Long Term Care Discharge Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Harger's nursing‑home discharge appeal dismissed for untimely filing
Summary
A hearing officer dismissed an appeal by Mr. Harger challenging a Sept. 25 notice of discharge after officials said the appeal did not reach the Department of Public Health in time for the office to gain jurisdiction.
A hearing officer dismissed an appeal by Mister Harger challenging a Sept. 25 notice of discharge, ruling the appeal was not timely filed and that the Department of Public Health lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
The hearing officer said the office did not receive the appellant's paperwork until Oct. 15, 2025, and therefore “we cannot proceed. And that would mean that the notice stands,” effectively leaving the original notice of discharge in place, the officer said.
The hearing officer opened the proceeding with a procedural review and asked the parties to swear an oath. The officer then asked whether the notice of discharge had been sent on Sept. 25; an office representative confirmed that date and said the notice had been uploaded to the long‑term care ombudsman system and faxed to nursing homes. The officer said the agency has jurisdiction over discharge appeals only when they are filed within the required time frame and that in this case the filing arrived late.
Lauren Wiganowski, identified in the hearing as a social worker, told the panel she submitted an appeal on Sept. 29 but that it was “accidentally sent” to the wrong fax number and had been emailed to a long‑term care ombudsman address. Wiganowski said she did not upload the appeal through the facility portal because she was not aware that the portal submission was required for appeals. The hearing record includes the fax number (860) 772‑1704; hearing participants said that number belongs to the Connecticut State Long Term Care Ombudsman and not the Department of Public Health.
A representative who identified herself as the person who sent the notice of discharge confirmed the notice was uploaded on Sept. 25. The hearing officer said the Department’s office did not receive the appeal until Oct. 15 and therefore lacked timely jurisdiction; the officer concluded, “the appeal is dismissed on the basis of untimely filing.”
After the dismissal, Mister Harger asked whether he could appeal the outcome. The hearing officer said the appropriate next step would be to seek review in Superior Court.
The hearing officer said the office will send a formal notice explaining the closure of the proceeding and next steps. No further evidence was taken at the hearing because the officer determined the office did not have jurisdiction to proceed.
