complaint·May 19, 2024

INVESTIGATION REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: Allegation: Staff abandoned resident at hospital. The details of the complaint alleged facility staff abandoned the resident at the hospital. The complainant reported resident #1 (R1) was admitted on 01/18/24 and that home care staff refused to accept (R1) back at the facility. The complainant stated that (R1) does not require additional higher level of care needs. The complainant reported when the hospital reached out to coordinate (R1) release and was informed by staff that (R1) could not return. According to resident #1 (R1)’s Admissions Agreement Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly is self-responsible and did not have a conservator, power of attorney, or guardian. Admissions Agreement revealed to be unsigned and undated by (R1) and facility representative. On 01/17/24 at 12:55 pm, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Melissa Spaeth interviewed resident #1 (R1). (R1) claimed to be an Assisted Living Waiver (AWL) recipient and should have not to pay anything. (R1) claimed to dispute the additional cost the administrator is charging. (R1) did not sign the Admissions Agreement due to the cost dispute. (R1) reported that the administrator issued (R1) a 30-day Eviction Notice on 01/11/24. (R1) claimed the administrator is attempting to evict (R1) based on non-payment. (R1) stated to have been placed in the facility on 12/20/24. On 05/18/24, between 02:45 pm – 03:31 pm, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ernand Dabuet interviewed administrator #1 (A1) by telephone. (A1) confirmed that (R1) was a resident at the facility and the facility provided care and supervision services for approximately 29 days. (A1) reported to have issued a 30-day Eviction Notice to (R1) in person served by a care staff. (A1) claimed to have notified Community Care Licensing (CCL) of the eviction by faxing the Eviction Notice to the Woodland Hills South Adult and Senior Care Regional Office. (A1) was uncertain of the date the notice was dated and issued nor the date it was sent to (CCL). (A1) did not follow up with the (WHS) Regional office to determine if notice was received or was authorized for approval. (Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C) (A1) communicated that (R1) was an AWL and SSI recipient and that (R1) was evicted for non-payment and failed to adhere to the facility’s house rules and policies. (A1) confirmed to have received a payment from (ALW) in March 2024, which was deposited into the facility's account. (A1) reported that (R1) had health issues that required hospitalization in January 2024, and was hospitalized after being issued a 30-day Eviction Notice. (A1) claimed that (R1) never signed an Admissions Agreement. As a result, (R1) is not considered a resident at the facility. (A1) assumed that without an Admission Agreement, there is no valid contract with (R1). (A1) did not have an obligation to accept the resident back and the 30-day Notice was served. (A1) claimed (R1)’s belongings were picked up while the resident was still in the hospital. In (A1)'s opinion, (R1) needed a higher level of care but did not have a medical assessment from the hospital records to support the claim. (A1) agreed to provide a copy of the Eviction Notice issued to (R1) and a copy of the facsimile receipt sent to the (WHS) (CCL) Regional office to LPA Dabuet on 05/19/24. On 05/18/24, between 03:35 pm – 4:4pm, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ernand Dabuet interviewed staff #1 (S1) and residents #2-#3 (R2-R3). (R2-R3) claimed they did not know about (R1)’s residency before their placement at this facility. (S1) claimed to have no knowledge of the matter concerning (R1) as (S1) is a recent hire at the facility. ( R4) was unavailable for an interview and could not give a statement. (LPA) Ernand Dabuet could not obtain additional statements related to the allegations in this complaint from (R1) due to unreturned calls. According to internal records (dated: 01/17/24, 01/18/24, and 01/23) reviewed by (LPA) Dabuet, (A1) was informed of by (CCL) Associate Government Program Analyst (AGPA) Aileen Aguinaldo, it is the responsibility of the facility despite the 30-day Eviction Notice issue to (R1), and that (A1) agreed and will allow (R1) to return to the facility. (Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C) This report serves as an amendment to clarify the finding. It does not supersede the complaint investigation findings reflected in the report created on 05/19/24. The documents were sent by facsimile to (CCLD) with no confirmed receipt from (A1). The (WHS) (CCL) Regional Office had no records on file. The facility failed to follow up with (CCL) for approval as written in Title 22 Regulations Section 87224 Eviction Procedures. (A1) failed to follow up and contact the Department informing that a 30-day Notice was issued to (R1). It was determined the notice was not valid. (A1) failed to provide a copy of the notice to LPA Dabuet along with facsimile receipt. Based on interviews and record reviews, there is sufficient evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. Based on the Department's observation and interviews, records reviews, and analysis, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the allegation of “Staff abandoned resident at hospital" is Substantiated . California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8, is being cited on the attached LIC 9099-D. An exit interview was conducted with Jan Allen Vernon De Jesus. The Rights were discussed with Nicol De Las Alas by telephone, and a copy of App eals Procedures for Licensees was provided, as well as a copy of this report.