complaint·October 23, 2024

The investigation revealed the following: Allegation #1- Unlawful eviction. The details of the complaint alleged that the licensee issued the resident (R1) an eviction notice on 9/11/2024 due to possible non-payment. On 10/23/24, from 09:35am-12:30pm, LPAs interviewed staff (S1-S3) and residents (R1-R6) regarding the allegation. 2 of 3 staff (S1- S3) denied the allegation that the facility issued an Unlawful eviction. Staff (S1-S2) stated that they did not issue a 30-day eviction notice to R1 but rather a notice that the rent was past due and that R1 had not paid any rent since R1 was admitted on 07/25/24, and if not received, then the facility would issue an eviction letter. One staff had no knowledge of an eviction notice. LPA reviewed the notice and observed that in the heading of the letter it says, “This letter shall serve as a 30 day notice to vacate room 229A because of failure to pay the services rendered by Hacienda Grande”. LPA also reviewed the rent invoices (Dated: 08/01/24, 09/01/24, 10/01/24) that shows a past due balance of rent unpaid. LPA interviewed residents R1-R6 about the allegation and 1 of 6 residents that were interviewed corroborated the allegation that the facility issued an Unlawful eviction. Resident (R1) stated that they issued an eviction letter to them on 9/11/24. 5 of 6 residents stated that they have not been issued an eviction notice. Based on interviews and records reviewed the Licensee, (S1) failed to serve R1 with an eviction notice in accordance with tittle 22 regulations. A review of the eviction notice dated 09/11/24, revealed the following items were not included in the eviction notice: The eviction notice was missing resources and referrals for R1, a statement regarding if R1 stays at the facility an unlawful detainer shall be filed. Also, a written copy of the eviction notice was not issued to Community Care Licensing (CCLD) within 5-days. The facility stated that they mailed a copy to the Monterey Park office on 09/11/24. CCLD received the eviction notice on 10/09/24. Moreover, a statement indicating the residents right to file a complaint with CCLD and the contact information for the Long-Term Care Ombudsman was missing from the eviction letter. Therefore, the above allegation Unlawful eviction, is found to be Substantiated . California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division (6) and chapter (8) deficiencies are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Allegation #2- Facility staff open resident's mail without permission. The details of the complaint alleged that the facility opened the residents’ (R1) mail without consent, including the residents’ social security checks. On 10/23/24, from 09:35am-12:30pm, LPAs interviewed staff (S1-S3) and residents (R1-R6) regarding the allegation. 2 of 3 staff (S1-S3) denied the allegation that the Facility staff open resident's mail without permission. S1 stated that all mail that are checks with their name on it (Hacienda Grande) are opened and processed. And any other mail that is not addressed to Hacienda Grande and are addressed to the residents are not opened. LPA reviewed the copy of two checks and observed that R1s name was on the check above the facilities name. The name and address of the facility below R1s name is the facility that R1 is residing at, and therefore should not have been opened. Report continued on LIC9099-C LPA interviewed residents (R1-R6) about the allegation and 1 of 6 residents that were interviewed corroborated the allegation that the Facility staff open resident's mail without permission. R1 stated that the facility had no right to open R1s mail because it was not addressed to the facility but to R1 only. 5 of 6 residents stated that they have not had an issue with the facility opening their mail. Based on interviews conducted and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. Therefore, the above allegation: Facility staff open resident's mail without permission, is found to be Substantiated . California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division (6) and chapter (8) Deficiencies are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Citations were issued, and plans of corrections were discussed. Note: *Citations not cleared by the due date will have a $100 fine assessed for each citation until it is cleared. Civil penalties will continue to accrue until Proof of Corrections (POC) is cleared. An exit interview was conducted with Rodrigo Ramos, Licensee, and a copy of this Complaint Investigation Report and appeal rights were provided. LPA interviewed residents (R1-R6) about the allegation and 1 of 6 residents that were interviewed corroborated the allegation that the Facility staff did not provide a safe environment for the residents. The majority of residents (5 of 6) interviewed stated that the facility does provide a safe environment and that they are happy with the care and supervision provided by the staff. Based on interviews, there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation that the Facility staff did not provide a safe environment for the residents. 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 Unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Rodrigo Ramos, Licensee, and a copy of this Complaint Investigation Report and appeal rights were provided .