complaint·January 6, 2025

Continue LIC9099-C page 2 Allegation: Staff are financially abusing residents in care. S1-S2 and R1-R6 stated that the staff is not financially abusing residents in care. R1-R6 stated they received all their funds and had no complaints about their money or being financially abused by staff. S1-S2 stated that the facility is the payee for 12 residents, and their Social Security checks are sent directly to the facility's business office, where the checks are deposited into the Citibank account. S1 stated she is only responsible for issuing Personal and Incidental (P&I) funds to the 12 residents, who sign off on the amount they receive. S1-S2 and R1-R6 denied the allegation. The investigation revealed the following: Interviews were conducted with staff members 1 and 2 (S1-S2) and residents 1 through 6 (R1-R6). All individuals interviewed stated that the allegation did not occur. S1-S2 and R1-R6 stated that staff safeguard residents’ cash resources and personal property. S1-S2 and R1-R6 stated that neither the administrator nor the facility social worker is stealing money from the residents. S1-S2 and R1-R6 also reported that staff are not removing funds from residents’ bank accounts or altering records to conceal any such actions. S1-S2 stated that residents’ funds are not being taken for personal use and later returned to the accounts. S1-S2 and R1-R6 stated that residents are not complaining about not receiving their monthly payments. According to S1, the facility is the payee for 12 residents, and their checks are deposited into Citibank by the business office, not by the administrator or the social worker. S1-S2 also stated that neither the administrator nor the social worker deposits residents’ checks. A review of the bank statements for the 12 residents for whom the facility serves as payees indicated that all Personal and Incidental P&I funds are being distributed as required. The residents’ bank records appeared accurate during the investigation. S1-S2 stated that the facility adheres to Title 22 Regulations. Based on the department Interviews with S1-S2 and R1-R6, as well as a review of relevant documents, the department did not have sufficient information or documents to substantiate the allegation. Both staff and residents denied the claim. Based on interviews, available evidence, observation, information received, and records reviewed there was not enough sufficient evidence to support the allegation. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is deemed unsubstantiated. There were no deficiencies cited. An exit interview conducted