Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedural Expert Qualification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel qualifies Department expert despite defense objections about nursing-home experience
Summary
The panel voted to qualify Dr. Jill Espelon as the Department's psychiatric expert after extended questioning about whether her experience prescribing psychotropic drugs in nursing-home dementia cases is sufficiently similar to the facts at issue; the vote passed 3–0 among the panelists present, and the panel asked an absent member to review the record before fact finding.
The Practitioner Licensing and Investigation panel on June 13 qualified the Department of Public Health’s expert, Dr. Jill Espelon, following a contested voir dire in which defense counsel argued she lacks direct APRN experience treating elderly nursing-home patients with dementia.
Dr. Espelon, who identified herself on the record as a board-certified psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner, described a career that includes an RN background in a nursing-home setting early in her career, teaching psychopharmacology to undergraduate nursing students, private practice and work under contract with the judicial branch. She said she has held Connecticut APRN licensure since 2009 and board certification in psychiatric mental health since 2008.
Defense counsel objected that Dr. Espelon "has not established whatsoever that she has practiced in a nursing home with elderly patients and seeing them in the manner" of the respondent’s case and questioned whether undergraduate teaching and older RN experience are sufficiently similar to the facts at hand. The defense argued that qualifying the witness is a dispositive ruling because, without an expert, the Department may be unable to meet its burden to prove deviation from the standard of care.
Panel members probed Dr. Espelon on whether, as an APRN, she had direct experience prescribing for patients with dementia or Parkinson’s disease; she said she had not, adding that some of her antipsychotic prescribing related to mood stabilization (for bipolar disorder) and that much of her dementia-related instruction occurred in undergraduate teaching. One panel member noted Dr. Espelon’s early RN experience in nursing homes but asked whether her more recent APRN work was comparable.
Board member Sal moved to qualify the witness as an expert; Lisa seconded. The chair conducted a roll call and recorded aye votes from Sal, Lisa and Chair Gina Reiner. Defense counsel placed an objection on the record, arguing an absent panelist (Dr. Camille Payne) had voted earlier on other matters and must hear or review the full testimony before participating in dispositive votes; the panel directed that the absent member review the record before any dispositive fact-finding and did not re-take the expert-qualification vote.
The qualification means Dr. Espelon may offer opinions subject to cross-examination in the ongoing adjudicative phase. The defense has preserved objection and indicated it will move for appropriate relief if the absence or qualification issue affects later rulings.
