Connecticut medical board hears testimony and pauses for review in Dr. Singal fitness-to-practice hearing

The Connecticut Medical Examining Board met remotely on March 25, 2026, to hear evidence in petition No. 2025-86 concerning Dr. Ceda Singal’s fitness to practice medicine. The Department of Public Health introduced sealed investigative and medical records and asked the board to impose discipline if the panel finds the department’s allegations proven; Dr. Singal testified and her counsel presented a forensic evaluation that the panel paused to review before proceeding to fact-finding.

Why it matters: The board is considering whether a licensed physician can safely return to practice after a medical episode the parties place in late 2024 through early 2025. The department urged monitoring and strict conditions to protect public health; the respondent and her counsel said she has been in treatment and stable for about a year and is willing to accept supervised conditions to return to work.

The hearing opened with formal identification of exhibits and parties. Assistant Attorney General Alina Brooklyn Goldstein told the panel she would advise on evidentiary issues but would not participate in decisions on the statement of charges. Chair Katherine EMTT, Dr. Peter Zean and Dr. Steven Wolf sat as the panel. Linda Fazina appeared for the Department of Public Health; Attorney Virginia Gillette represented Dr. Singal.

Counsel and the panel catalogued board exhibits and 12 department exhibits; many department records were marked under seal, including hospital and treatment records. Respondent exhibits A–D, which include a forensic evaluation and treatment notes, were also submitted under seal and respondent counsel requested they remain sealed because they contain private medical information.

Department counsel summarized the case in opening remarks, saying the documentary evidence and records support the department’s allegations and asking the board to impose discipline ‘‘as necessary to protect public health and safety.’’ Respondent counsel acknowledged a medical episode in December 2024 through roughly February 2025 but said Dr. Singal’s subsequent treatment and stability ‘‘since approximately March or April of last year’’ weigh in favor of restoration under conditions.

Dr. Singal testified about her education and work history, describing undergraduate and medical training, residency in internal medicine at the University of Connecticut, and work as a hospitalist and independent contractor with Eastern Connecticut Health Network and Hartford HealthCare. She said she had shifts terminated in mid-December 2024 and received a formal termination letter in January 2025.

In closed (executive) sessions to handle sealed medical evidence, Dr. Singal described her support network and ongoing care. She told the panel she understands her diagnosis, expects to continue therapy and medication, and said she would accept reporting requirements and restrictions on solo practice or overnight shifts if the board restores her license.

Respondent called a forensic evaluator identified on the record as Dr. Erin Reid, who described conducting interviews with the respondent, reviewing records (including Department of Public Health records and pharmacy history), performing collateral contacts and incorporating psychological testing into a written report (marked respondent exhibit A).

After returning from executive session, department counsel outlined specific conditions the department recommends if the board decides restoration is appropriate: a probationary monitoring period (the department suggested four years), therapy by a Connecticut-licensed clinician approved by the department, medication management by a board-certified psychiatrist with regular reporting, employer reports from supervisors, no solo practice and limits on overnight shifts, part-time initial return and periodic observed drug testing for alcohol, cannabis and illicit substances with negative results required.

Respondent counsel told the panel Dr. Singal has engaged with treatment, has a multidisciplinary support system and ‘‘would be agreeable to most if not all of the conditions’’ proposed by the department, and urged reinstatement subject to appropriate safeguards.

Procedural outcome: The evidentiary portion of the hearing concluded and the panel discussed fact-finding. One panelist requested 15–20 minutes to review the forensic report on the record; the board paused the public record and agreed to reconvene at 11:40 to allow panel members to review the evaluator’s report before proceeding to fact-finding.

What’s next: The board will resume and, if prepared, proceed to fact-finding and deliberation on any disciplinary or restorative conditions. The record shows multiple sealed medical exhibits will inform that determination.