Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables Rochelle George case, requests legal briefs on expertise and notice
Summary
The board tabled consideration of a proposed memorandum that recommended vacating a summary suspension and dismissing charges for RN Rochelle George, asking parties to file briefs on whether the board may rely on its own expertise without specific notice and on the admissibility of affidavits. Briefs were set for June 12 ahead of a June 17 board meeting.
A contested case involving RN Rochelle George (petitions 2025-299 and 2025-298) was tabled for additional briefing after respondents’ counsel argued key affidavits used by DPH were unreliable. The proposed memorandum recommended vacating a summary suspension and dismissing charges, but counsel for DPH and respondents debated whether affidavits from third parties were admissible and whether the board must give explicit notice before relying on its institutional expertise.
Respondent counsel (Arnold Ira Menchel) argued that the affidavit relied upon by DPH’s investigation (from a third-party school owner) was unreliable, and he cited legal standards (including Connecticut precedent) about hearsay and trustworthiness. DPH’s attorney noted the record and the hearing officer’s factual findings supporting the proposed memorandum. Because the oral argument raised legal questions about notice and reliance on board expertise, board legal counsel recommended requesting written briefs so the board had a more complete legal record before taking a final vote.
The board voted to table the matter to the June 17 meeting and asked both parties to submit simultaneous briefs by June 12 that address the notice question, the admissibility and probative value of affidavits, and related procedural-law issues. The board’s request aims to give members time to review legal briefs and the hearing record before finalizing the proposed memorandum.
Why it matters: The board asked for legal briefs because the parties disputed foundational evidentiary and procedural questions. The briefing will shape whether the proposed order stands and whether the underlying allegations are dismissed or require further proceedings.
