Panel rules on dozens of exhibits, keeps several under identification‑only and seals personal addresses

The licensing panel considered admission and scope of dozens of exhibits submitted by the Department and the respondent during the disciplinary hearing.

Respondent counsel objected to a large block of Department Exhibit 3 (pp. 173–286), arguing much of that material consisted of facility policies, photographs, surveyor notes and other documents not properly authenticated or relevant. Department counsel said the packages were provided by the Facility Licensing and Investigation section and included medical‑record material, fall reports, and licensing investigator notes tied to patient number 1. The panel overruled relevancy objections but sustained foundational objections and left several exhibits (including parts of D3, D5, D8, D9 and D14) as identification‑only until a witness authenticates them on the record.

Department Exhibit 4, described as Gladeview Healthcare Center medical records provided by the facility nurse (Deidre Cozzo, DNS), was entered as a full exhibit under seal. Respondent exhibits A, B and C (Gladeview records and a redacted AIMS report) were also entered as full exhibits under seal; respondent counsel agreed to refile Exhibit C with the patient name redacted after noting the name was not redacted in the submitted copy.

A specific sealing motion addressed the presence of a respondent home address on page 6 of Department Exhibit 6. The panel agreed to seal pages 1–6 and page 9 of that exhibit to protect personal information from routine public disclosure, noting that Freedom of Information Act requests or licensing system data might still make some information obtainable but that the hearing record would not make it broadly available in exhibit copies.

Department expert reports (several exhibits identified as expert opinions) were admitted under seal after the Department argued expedited‑hearing rules allow written opinions when the declarant is available for cross‑examination. Respondent counsel objected that written expert reports were cumulative if the expert would testify live; the panel accepted the department's position and admitted the reports under seal while allowing cross‑examination at testimony.

The panel's rulings preserve evidentiary objections for the record; several documents remain ID‑only pending live authentication by witnesses expected later in the hearing.