Connecticut Dental Commission continues hearing in disciplinary case against Dr. Kristen W. Helms

The Connecticut Dental Commission on Dec. 4, 2025 continued a disciplinary hearing in petition No. 2024-87 alleging that Dr. Kristen W. Helms practiced dentistry while impaired by alcohol. The session centered on expert testimony about laboratory testing windows, the role of the Haven monitoring program, and Helms' own account of a workplace incident that led to her referral to Haven.

Witness Paula Del Greco, who testified in the prior session, described reviewing multiple types of tests entered into evidence and explained their limits. She told the Commission that urine drug screens typically detect alcohol metabolites for about "72 hours" and that PETH testing can detect alcohol use "up to 3 weeks," adding that higher quantitative levels generally indicate more consumption in that detection window. When asked whether a test can show the precise time a person drank, Del Greco said, "Not the exact time," but conceded tests can place use within the timerspans she described.

That exchange was a focal point of cross-examination by Paul Spinella, counsel for the respondent, who argued that a positive test result does not by itself establish that a clinician was impaired while providing patient care on a particular date. On redirect, the Commission's counsel elicited testimony that, within the context of the Haven program — which the witness described as a full-abstinence monitoring program — a positive test is treated as an indication of use "on or about" the date the test result was reported.

The Commission also considered a defense objection that questions about testing and the Haven program exceeded the scope of cross-examination and were not relevant to the specific dates in the statement of charges. Chairman Peter Katz ruled that the objections were overruled and permitted testimony about the program and its records, saying the program's testing and its zero-tolerance policy were relevant to the panel's determination of the respondent's compliance with monitoring requirements.

Dr. Helms was sworn and testified about her education and current practice schedule, saying she is semi-retired and works part time at a Milford dental office. She described the January 31, 2022 workplace incident that led to the referral: she said she had placed a bottle of wine in her car after grocery shopping, poured it into a travel mug to prevent freezing, took personal items into the office and left the travel mug in a shared closet. Helms said the practice owner discovered the item, sent her home and required enrollment in the Haven program to return to work. "I poured the coffee out, and I poured the wine in so it wouldn't explode in the car," she said.

Helms disputed specific language in a Department of Public Health intake report. "The DPH report erroneously stated that I was caught drinking wine from a water bottle during a work meeting," she said, adding she never drank from a water bottle and there was no work meeting that day. At the end of her direct examination, Helms asked the Commission to go into executive session to review sealed records submitted under protective conditions.

No final disciplinary determination was reached during the session. The Commission admitted a procedural "notice of continued hearing" as Commission Exhibit 15 and allowed further testimony and document review; it reserved further fact-finding and decision-making for a later date. The hearing remains open; the panel signaled it will continue consideration of evidence and possibly review sealed materials in executive session before issuing any final action.