Nursing board declines proposed consent order in tramadol-diversion case; members seek fines and ethics coursework
March 05, 2026 | Department of Public Health, Departments and Agencies, Organizations, Executive, Connecticut
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Board of Examiners for Nursing voted on March 4 against approving a consent order that would have placed Christina El Parullo, LPN (petition 2023-910), on a four-year probation for tramadol diversion, related possession charges and failures to report.
The department summarized the allegations and the proposed terms: a four-year probation with urine screening, therapy, employer reports, a one-year key restriction, and attendance at anonymous support meetings. Department counsel said the respondent's license had been summarily suspended pending resolution.
Respondent's counsel described ongoing therapy and compliance. During board discussion several members said the proposed order did not adequately address patient harm or accountability. "I would like to see a monetary penalty and some kind of coursework," said board member Lisa Freeman, suggesting a fine "in the $2,000 to $3,000 range" and an ethics/professional-conduct course to reinforce patient-centered obligations. Other board members echoed concerns and noted the respondent had prior related contacts with law enforcement and multiple incidents alleged in the record.
Chair Gina Reiners called the motion to approve the consent order as written; the motion failed in roll-call votes. The board directed department and respondent counsel to confer and amend the proposed consent order to reflect the board's concerns, or proceed to a hearing if necessary.
Why it matters: Board members said diversion and possession of controlled substances by a licensee directly implicate patient safety and public trust, and they signaled a desire for both rehabilitative terms and financial or corrective sanctions when appropriate.
What happened next: Attorneys were instructed to revise the consent order language to address the board's requested elements or prepare for a hearing.
Provenance: Department presentation and discussion appear in the transcript where the consent order was read and debated (consent-order summary at SEG 1464–1478; member debate and roll-call beginning SEG 1532–1730).
The department summarized the allegations and the proposed terms: a four-year probation with urine screening, therapy, employer reports, a one-year key restriction, and attendance at anonymous support meetings. Department counsel said the respondent's license had been summarily suspended pending resolution.
Respondent's counsel described ongoing therapy and compliance. During board discussion several members said the proposed order did not adequately address patient harm or accountability. "I would like to see a monetary penalty and some kind of coursework," said board member Lisa Freeman, suggesting a fine "in the $2,000 to $3,000 range" and an ethics/professional-conduct course to reinforce patient-centered obligations. Other board members echoed concerns and noted the respondent had prior related contacts with law enforcement and multiple incidents alleged in the record.
Chair Gina Reiners called the motion to approve the consent order as written; the motion failed in roll-call votes. The board directed department and respondent counsel to confer and amend the proposed consent order to reflect the board's concerns, or proceed to a hearing if necessary.
Why it matters: Board members said diversion and possession of controlled substances by a licensee directly implicate patient safety and public trust, and they signaled a desire for both rehabilitative terms and financial or corrective sanctions when appropriate.
What happened next: Attorneys were instructed to revise the consent order language to address the board's requested elements or prepare for a hearing.
Provenance: Department presentation and discussion appear in the transcript where the consent order was read and debated (consent-order summary at SEG 1464–1478; member debate and roll-call beginning SEG 1532–1730).
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
