Department expert qualified; panel hears opening statements in APRN Sheehan disciplinary hearing

A three‑member Department of Public Health licensing panel qualified Dr. Jill Espelen on June 13, 2024, as the department's expert in a disciplinary proceeding alleging failures in prescribing and monitoring psychotropic medication for "patient number 1" at Gladeview Health Center.

The Department opened the hearing with a summary that the patient was admitted to Gladeview on or about Dec. 3, 2021, and discharged about Jan. 12, 2022. Department counsel said the department's theory is that APRN Sheehan prescribed antipsychotic medications without adequately discussing them with the patient's authorized health‑care representative, failed to consult other treating providers, did not document the risks and benefits of the drugs prescribed, and did not monitor the patient sufficiently for side effects. The department called Dr. Espelen, a board‑certified psychiatric mental‑health nurse practitioner, to testify about those standards of care.

Respondent counsel disputed the allegations in an opening statement, saying Sheehan has a long record of caring for patients and that staff at Gladeview and an overseeing physician, Dr. Zanotta, were involved in medication decisions. Counsel said the record contains discrepancies that Sheehan will explain under oath and noted that some contested documents will be authenticated at testimony.

On the expert qualification issue, board members and counsel questioned Dr. Espelen at length about her clinical background. Dr. Espelen described decades of nursing practice, board certification in psychiatric mental‑health nursing since 2008, APRN licensure in Connecticut since 2009, prescriber registrations (state controlled‑substances registration and DEA), clinical teaching of psychopharmacology to undergraduate nursing students, and oversight of APRN students in outpatient and judicial settings. She acknowledged she has not practiced as an APRN in long‑term nursing‑home care treating many patients with advanced dementia; she said her direct RN experience included time in nursing‑home settings earlier in her career and that, as an APRN, much of her practice involved outpatient, judicial and addiction populations.

Respondent counsel argued Dr. Espelen lacked similar‑practice experience treating elderly nursing‑home patients with dementia and comorbidities like the patient in this case and moved to exclude her. The department countered that an expert may be qualified by knowledge, skill, training or education and that Dr. Espelen's psychopharmacology experience would assist the panel in determining the standard of care.

Board member Sal moved to qualify Dr. Espelen as an expert; Lisa seconded. The panel took a roll call and recorded Sal: aye; Lisa: aye; Chair Gina Reiner: aye. The panel therefore qualified Dr. Espelen to offer expert opinions. Respondent counsel placed a formal procedural objection on the record because another panelist, Dr. Payne, had stepped away for part of the hearing; counsel said she would preserve that objection in writing.

The hearing then moved toward fact finding with witnesses to follow. The panel instructed that Dr. Payne should review the complete record before participating in future dispositive votes and took a brief recess.

The proceedings included routine evidentiary rulings on dozens of exhibits and several sealed pages to protect personal information; those rulings and the exhibit admissions are recorded separately in the hearing record.