Hearing recessed after Greystone acknowledged no discharge plan in Robert Berry appeal

A Department of Public Health administrative hearing on Aug. 21, 2025, recessed after Greystone Retirement Home acknowledged it had not prepared or submitted a required discharge plan in the appeal of a discharge notice for resident Robert Berry, docket number 250815.

The hearing was convened by a Department of Public Health hearing officer, who entered three exhibits into the record: the facility—s discharge notice (Exhibit 1), an appeal dated Aug. 15, 2025 (Exhibit 2), and a notice of hearing dated Aug. 21, 2025 (Exhibit 3). The hearing officer told Greystone staff that, under the statute referenced in the hearing, "you're required to prepare and submit a copy of the discharge plan to the Department of Public Health and also give a copy to mister Berry." The hearing officer said, "If that discharge plan was not prepared and or not submitted to the department of public health or mister Berry, then the home is not in compliance with the statute. If the home is not in compliance with the statute, we could go through this whole hearing, and I could write a decision, but that decision would come out in favor of mister Berry." The hearing officer offered Greystone two options: proceed with the hearing or withdraw the discharge notice on the record and start over.

Crystal Player, identified as Greystone—s admissions and resource director, said she believed a discharge plan "was put into a portal" but that "I think we put it into the wrong portal" and that the facility had no placement available "other than a shelter." Player said she was not familiar with all required filings and asked to contact the owners before proceeding. Resident and appellant Robert Berry said paperwork he received contained an apparent error: he told the hearing officer he had "no idea who Ralph Acabo is" after a document he received referenced that name; the hearing officer said a corrected notice of hearing was issued on Aug. 21, 2025.

Greystone staff member Pam Catalina identified herself as a second-shift staff person who distributes medication. Amanda Mangiafico identified herself as representing the long-term care ombudsman office and was sworn before testifying.

With Greystone staff indicating they would call the owners to confirm whether the discharge plan had been filed, the hearing officer recessed the proceeding for five minutes to allow the facility to consult with its owners. No formal decision was issued at that time and no formal withdrawal of the discharge notice was entered on the record during the transcript segment provided.

The record establishes the central factual and procedural issues for any further hearing: whether a discharge plan was prepared and provided to both the Department of Public Health and to Mr. Berry as described on the record, and whether the facility complied with the statutory filing requirement referenced by the hearing officer. The hearing resumed after the recess is not recorded in the provided transcript segments.