Connecticut nursing board revokes LPN license after finding applicant concealed New York surrender

Connecticut Board of Examiners for Nursing · February 5, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Connecticut Board of Examiners for Nursing voted to revoke the practical nurse license of Luis Humberto Alfaro after finding he failed to disclose a New York license surrender and made materially misleading answers on Connecticut licensure forms; the panel found several charges proven by a preponderance of the evidence and voted 3–0 to revoke.

The Connecticut Board of Examiners for Nursing voted to revoke the Connecticut practical nurse license of Luis Humberto Alfaro after concluding he concealed a disciplinary surrender in New York and provided misleading answers on his Connecticut licensure applications.

Board members voted unanimously among those present after a fact‑finding hearing in which the Department argued Alfaro "knowingly concealed information from the department in order to obtain licensure," citing Connecticut statutes and exhibits including the New York surrender application. The panel found, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that several paragraphs of the Department's statement of charges were proven and that Alfaro failed to report the New York action and omitted it on his Connecticut renewal application.

The Department's attorney summarized its case by citing the New York surrender and the respondent's Connecticut endorsement application, saying the record showed Alfaro applied for Connecticut licensure on Jan. 18, 2023, after a 2022 charge and a Jan. 17, 2023 conviction in New York. The prosecutor told the board the surrender "was an attempt to hide his misconduct and keep his license in Connecticut safe," and asked the board to revoke his Connecticut license under statutes the Department cited at the hearing.

In his testimony, Alfaro described the incident underlying the New York matter as an on‑shift event in which his pants were falling and he attempted a makeshift repair. He testified the patient in the suite was asleep and denied any inappropriate touching. "It was made out of, cardboard," Alfaro said of the temporary device he used, describing a hurried attempt to fix his clothing. He told the panel he pleaded to a misdemeanor after exhausting his finances on legal fees, and that the New York file was to be sealed.

Defense counsel urged the board to consider Alfaro's two decades of nursing service and argued the written documents could be misunderstood by a non‑lawyer. "This case is difficult because the written word says one thing, but I believe my client and his testimony and his sincerity said something different," the defense said during closing remarks.

Panel members, however, focused on what they described as material misstatements and omissions on Alfaro's Connecticut application and renewal forms. Board member Lisa Freeman noted the New York surrender form was explicit that it was "surrendered as part of a disciplinary proceeding," and the panel concluded Alfaro failed to report the New York action within the time required by Connecticut law.

After deliberation, Freeman moved to revoke the respondent's Connecticut practical nurse license; the motion was seconded and carried on a recorded vote: Diane Whitley — Aye; Lisa Freeman — Aye; Mary Dietman — Aye. The chair said a typographical error in the statement of charges (a misspelling of Alfaro's name) would be corrected as a scrivener's error.

The board concluded by moving to the remedy phase and ordering revocation under the statutory authorities cited during the hearing. The panel adjourned and the clerk recorded the hearing off the record at 4:37 p.m.

The hearing record includes the Department's exhibits (New York surrender application, Connecticut endorsement application, and renewal materials) and the respondent's testimony. The board's action is administrative; the transcript does not state whether the respondent intends to seek judicial review or other post‑decision relief.