Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Connecticut nursing board approves, rejects consent orders in multiple cases
Summary
During its July 15 meeting the board approved a consent order for Gregory Orfatelli, rejected a proposed consent order for Sabrina Marcelino, and approved a revised consent order for Jackie Lamate, citing concerns ranging from prior substance-use-related monitoring to practicing outside RN scope.
The Board of Examiners for Nursing handled multiple consent orders on July 15, approving some and rejecting others after member discussion about scope-of-practice, integrity and appropriate penalties.
Gregory Orfatelli: The department presented a consent order for Gregory Orfatelli (petition 2025-67) that would add a four-year probation with random urine screens, continued therapy, employer/therapist reports and continued monitoring given his prior probation history related to substance use. Julianne Getaya presented the department’s recommendation. Attorney Richard Brown, counsel for Orfatelli, summarized rehabilitative steps and letters of support. Lisa Freeman moved to accept the consent order and Cindy Arpin seconded; Sal Diaz recused himself from the case and the board approved the consent order by recorded vote.
Sabrina Marcelino: The department proposed a consent order alleging that between April 6, 2023 and July 31, 2025 Marcelino provided services beyond RN scope that required APRN licensure; the proposed order would impose a cease-and-desist, a reprimand, a $5,000 civil penalty and require ethics/scope coursework. Board members raised concerns that Marcelino had misrepresented herself as an APRN when taking certain courses and discussed adding ethics coursework, a higher civil penalty and a longer probation. After discussion the board did not affirm the proposed consent order.
Jackie Lamate: A revised consent order for Jackie Lamate included a reprimand, a $1,000 civil penalty and a six-month probation to complete coursework and scope-of-practice documentation. Counsel represented the respondent had agreed to the revisions; the board voted to approve the consent order.
Where the board rejected or modified consent orders, counsel for the department and respondents were asked to confer about revised terms or next procedural steps. The board repeatedly emphasized it does not have the authority to unilaterally modify a consent order beyond approving or rejecting it; it can request revisions from the department or respondents.
