Complaint·May 5, 2026

Interviews revealed that three (3) out of four (4) residents (R2-R4) and all three (3) staff (S1-S3) have denied the allegation has taken place. On 11/14/25 CDSS collected an immediate resolution between party A and the facility (party B), dated 11/03/25. Record reviews have revealed that party B has informed party A of party B's responsibility to care for party A. This document has been signed by both parties. Furthermore, party A has signed the addendum for managed care program participants, dated 05/07/25. This document is an agreement between both parties, which is broken down into five segments, which explains the fee process. Based on record reviews and interviews conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. Therefore, the above allegation has been Unsubstantiated . Regarding the allegation, “Illegal eviction”, it is being alleged that if party A does not agree with it, they can consider it a 60-day eviction notice, from party B. Interviews revealed that all four (4) residents (R1-R4) and all three (3) staff (S1-S3) have denied the allegation has taken place. Record reviews have revealed that party B has informed party A of party B's responsibility to care for party A. This document has been signed by both parties. Furthermore, party A has signed the addendum for managed care program participants, dated 05/07/25. This document is an agreement between both parties, which is broken down into five segments, which explains the fee process. CDSS was not provided any eviction notice. Based on record reviews and interviews conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. Therefore, the above allegation has been Unsubstantiated . Regarding the allegation, “Staff do not treat resident with dignity and respect”, it is being alleged that the staff turn the water off while party A is showering. Interviews have revealed that two (2) out of four (4) residents (R2-R3) and all three (3) staff (S1-S3) have denied the allegation has taken place. Based on interviews conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. Therefore, the above allegation has been Unsubstantiated . There have been zero (0) deficiencies cited during today's visit. An exit interview was held with Rino Santos and a copy of this report has been provided. Regarding the allegation, “Staff do not provide adequate food service”, it is being alleged that party B never serve fresh food. Record reviews revealed that food menu indicates a fresh food is provided daily. Interviews revealed that three (3) out of four (4) residents (R1, R2, R4) have agreed the allegation has taken place. On 11/14/25 R1 stated, "They don’t cook everyday. They cook for themselves every day, but it’s not for us. They provide us that later. Four (4) or five (5) days later.". On 11/14/25 S3 has stated, "For residents I will cook salmon and vegetables. The one I'm cooking now is for the staff.", which indicates that fresh food is not always provided to residents in care. Based on record reviews and interviews conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. Therefore, the above allegation is found to be Substantiated . California Code of Regulations, Title twenty-two (22), Division six (6) is being cited on the attached LIC 9099-D. There has been one (1) deficiency cited during today's visit. Please see LIC9099-D. An exit interview was held with Rino Santos (S1) and a Plan of Corrections (POC) has been developed. A copy of the facilities' appeal rights and this report has been provided.