Connecticut panel recommends revocation of APRN Ralph Herszfeld’s nursing license after fact‑finding

A three‑member panel of the Connecticut Board of Examiners for Nursing voted unanimously on a proposed memorandum recommending revocation of APRN/RN Ralph Herszfeld’s license after concluding the Department of Public Health met its burden of proof on multiple disciplinary counts.

The panel opened the June fact‑finding session with Chair Gina Riners identifying herself and explaining the standard of proof and procedure: "My name is Gina Riners. I am the chair. I am a APRN, but I am an RN member and I am the member of the board of examiners." Members then reviewed the record and exhibits the department submitted.

The department alleged — and the panel found support in the record — that Herszfeld failed to advise a patient to call 911 or to present to an emergency department during a November 22–24, 2023 encounter, and that he failed to bring the patient to emergency care. The panel also found evidence of professional boundary violations: the respondent provided temporary housing to patient number one, provided care outside of a care setting, and co‑signed a lease with that patient.

On separate counts the panel reviewed allegations that, between Jan. 1, 2023 and March 18, 2024, Herszfeld contracted as or acted as medical director for Emily Jolie Medical Spa (EJMS) without documented special training in cosmetic medical procedures; that his contract required oversight and in‑person physical assessments prior to cosmetic procedures but he did not perform those assessments; and that he signed patient records for evaluations or procedures he did not attend. The panel cited department exhibits and testimony in support of those findings.

The board panel discussed statutory requirements specific to medical spas and APRNs, including provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19A‑903 (medical spa staffing and training) and related nurse practice statutes cited by counsel. Panel members noted testimony and exhibits indicating the respondent neither had the training required for cosmetic procedures nor performed the in‑person assessments the statute contemplates.

After deliberation one panel member moved to adopt fact‑finding consistent with the department’s allegations; the motion was seconded and the panel chair conducted roll call. Mary Deepman, Sal Diaz and Gina Riners each voted in favor of the finding that the department sustained its burden of proof. The panel then considered remedy and the Department of Public Health requested revocation or other appropriate disciplinary action.

The panel voted unanimously to recommend revocation as the proposed remedy. The chair and counsel clarified that this recommendation will be issued as a proposed memorandum of decision and forwarded to the full board for final action; the respondent will receive the proposed decision and may request oral argument before the full board. When the panel explained that procedure to him, the respondent acknowledged: "Yes, I understand that."

The panel’s proposed revocation is not final until the full board reviews the proposed memorandum and votes. The panel adjourned after closing fact‑finding and confirming the procedural next steps.