Under the circumstances of this case, however, the plaintiff's constitutional rights to due process of law were violated by the delays of four years before the filing of charges and seven years before the hearing. The court finds that General Statutes § 20-13(e) does not deprive the Board of jurisdiction when an investigation exceeds eighteen months. In his brief, the plaintiff raises the following three issues: (1) a jurisdictional claim related to the failure to complete the investigation within an eighteen month period (2) a due process claim arising from the delay between the treatment in 1990 and hearing in 1997 and (3) a due process claim for failure to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard on the department's motion to withdraw statement of charges. The parties were heard in oral agreement on December 15, 1998. Briefs were filed by the plaintiff on Novemand by the defendants on December 7, 1998. The record was filed on September 18, 1998. This appeal was timely filed on August 25, 1998. The Board issued its written final decision on July 28, 1998. Pursuant to the UAPA, General Statutes § 4-179, the Board heard oral argument on the proposed decision on June 16, 1998. This request was denied by the Board in March of 1998. The plaintiff on Mafiled with the Board a request for declaratory ruling that the time period for investigations under General Statutes § 20-13e(a) was mandatory.

The hearing panel issued a proposed decision on January 26, 1998. The Board denied the motion on June 3, 1997, at which time, it held a hearing on the statement of charges. On May 30, 1997, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss with the Board for the Health Department's failure to comply with the 18 month investigatory time period set forth in General Statutes § 20-13e. The Board on February 18, 1997, without notice to the plaintiff, considered and rejected the motion to withdraw. In ex parte proceedings before the Board, the Health Department on Februfiled a motion to withdraw the charges against the plaintiff.

The Health Department initiated charges against the plaintiff on Decemapproximately 28 months after notice to the plaintiff and 39 months after notice to the Department of the malpractice settlement. The plaintiff provided such records on August 11, 1994. The plaintiff was not notified of the investigation until July 26, 1994, at which time, the Health Department requested the patient's records. A Health Department investigator was as, signed to investigate this incident on November 17, 1993. As required by statute, the plaintiff's medical malpractice insurer notified the Public Health Hearing Office of the Department of Health of the settlement of the malpractice claim on September 13, 1993. The patient died shortly after such period, and the plaintiff was apparently sued by her estate. The treatment at issue relates to a single patient treated by the plaintiff between July and November of 1990. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the decision which places him on probation, requiring him to have his medical charts audited for one year and to take a medical education course. The appeal is brought pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act ('UAPA') §§ 4-166 et seq. This case is an administrative appeal from a decision of the Connecticut Medical Examining Board ('Board') sanctioning the plaintiff, a medical doctor, for failing to meet the standard of care required of physicians in Connecticut with respect to his treatment of a patient in 1990.

Joost kap medical examining board