A Department of Public Health hearing panel voted unanimously during a remote proceeding to enter executive session to take sworn testimony from the mother of "patient number 1" and to play sealed exhibits in a licensing matter involving Dr. Ravi Prakash, a Norwich pediatrician.

The panel, consisting of Board member London, Board member Wolf and Board member Calderon, agreed that several exhibits marked by counsel required redaction or sealing to protect the minor's identity. Counsel and the panel discussed the status of exhibits identified in the record as p, g, g1, g2, e, e1, n, o/q, m and h, with panel members directing that dates of birth and the child's name be redacted from any exhibits that are not under seal. Panel members also said body-worn camera footage (exhibits g and g1) should be sealed if the child is visible; exhibit g2 was withdrawn from consideration.

Department counsel Linda Fazina summarized the charges during opening statements, saying the allegations "involve allegations that respondent failed to maintain appropriate boundaries or engaged in inappropriate conduct with, patient number 1 on or about 05/02/2024" and that there is a related record-request allegation for around 05/03/2024. Fazina told the panel the department intends to call the patient's mother as a witness and to play recordings that have been submitted under seal.

Respondent counsel Michael E. Sadi objected to portions of the department's approach and repeatedly urged the panel to require in-person testimony for key witnesses, citing due-process concerns in a proceeding that could involve discipline up to revocation of a medical license. Sadi told the panel the police officer who recorded the incident and later reported to the child-protection agency was subpoenaed but is currently out of state and unavailable; he said the respondent reserved the right to call that officer when he becomes available.

Sadi also challenged the mother's credibility and described evidence his client will offer, including recordings and photographic evidence of the exam room. Sadi said the records-related charge "will not hold up under the weight of any evidence" and argued that the mother's account had changed over time. He stated on the record that his client objects to taking the mother's testimony in executive session, and that the respondent would preserve that objection.

The panel then considered a motion to move into executive session so the mother's testimony could be taken under seal and so sealed recordings could be played. Board member Calderon seconded the motion. The panel chair called for a vote; all three panel members voted in favor. The panel then assigned breakout rooms and entered executive session.

Before the breakout, the respondent reiterated an objection for the record, arguing the panel could protect the child's identity while conducting the testimony in public by referring to the minor as "patient number 1," but the panel proceeded with its unanimous vote to go into closed session. The hearing record shows counsel may revisit motions on in-person testimony and that the panel will consider any further filings.

No final disciplinary action or evidentiary rulings on the merits were recorded during the public portion of this session. The executive session was called specifically to hear sealed testimony and to review sealed exhibits related to the charges.