complaint·June 11, 2025

INVESTIGATION REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: Allegation #1: Facility overcharged resident. The facility is accused of overcharging Resident #1 (R1) for services. According to the report, (R1) moved into the facility on April 8, 2025, and was billed for the entire month. (R1) has two charges listed for May 5, 2025, and May 19, 2025. It is reported that (R1) receives SSI/SSP income and should only be charged $1,420.07 monthly. A review of Resident #1's (R1) Admissions Agreement (dated March 19, 2025) shows that (R1) 's representative signed the agreement on that date. On page six, Section VI - Fees Subsection A – Monthly Fee indicated $1292.40 for fee for residential services for (R1). On June 11, 2025, between 10:00 AM and 10:15 AM, the Department interviewed a resident member identified as Resident #1 (R1). (R1) claimed not to know the financial intricacy and was uninterested. (R1) stated that (R1) 's family representative handles finances and payments. On June 11, 2025, between 10:15 AM and 11:00 AM, the Department interviewed staff members identified as Staff #1 and Staff #2 (S1-S2). (S1) verified that (R1)’s resident agreement signing of documents were performed on March 19, 2025. However, the (R1) did the fully take possession of a room until April 8, 2025. (S1-S2) stated that (R1) should have not been charged the full amount of $1,292.40 from April 1, 2025, through April 7, 2025. (S1) was unaware for the reported duplicate charges for May 5, 2025, and May 19, 2025. (S2) assumed the duplicate charge was for the preadmission for the month of March 2025 but later discovered that (R1) did not occupy the room for the March and should have not be charged the duplicate amount of $1292.40 in May 2025. (S1-S2) both verified there is an error in billing, and it was not intentional. The Department reviewed invoices Facility Transaction Log (dated June 11, 2025) from March 1, 2025, through June 5, 2025, and revealed (R1) was billed for March 2025. Payments for April 2025 were applied to the March 2025 invoice, leaving (R1)’s account in the rears. Individual invoices from March through June indicate being paid in full. Nonetheless, the invoice for May 2025 did not list itemized services or charges to indicate the two charges for May 2025. Based on the information gathered, there is sufficient evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. (Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C) Allegation #2: Facility staff is not answering communications from resident’s representative. It is alleged that the facility staff is not responding to communications from Resident #1 (R1)'s representative. It has been reported that Staff #1 (S1) has not addressed the issue of (R1) being overcharged twice for the month of May 2025 for services. On June 11, 2025, between 10:00 AM and 10:15 AM, the Department interviewed resident member identified as Resident #1 (R1). (R1) claimed to have no knowledge of any issues with the charges for services. (R1) is unaware if any facility staff have had any communication regarding this matter with (R1)’s family representative. On June 11, 2025, between 10:15 AM and 11:00 AM, the Department interviewed staff members identified as Staff #1 and Staff #2 (S1-S2). (S1) acknowledged several text messages from (R1) 's representative in late May 2025. (S1) stated in the text messages that (S1) responded to the text messages to (R1) 's representative with messages from May 26, 2025, through May 28, 2025, of the following: "I will call you back in a few minutes," "In a signing, will call you back shortly," and "I will call you back shortly." Despite earlier assurances, (S1) confessed to neglecting the follow-up call to (R1)’s representative, which had been promised. (S2) claimed was unaware of any issues or concerns related to (R1). The Department reviewed the text communication logs between (S1) and (R1) 's family representative. It was confirmed that (S1) had a text exchange from May 26, 2025, to May 28, 2025. The last recorded text to (S1) by (R1) 's representative was on June 4, 2025, requesting an update. (R1)'s representative has sent an email but has not received a response. Additionally, (R1) 's representative is requesting a callback. Based on the information gathered, there is sufficient evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. Allegation #3: Facility staff has not provided a copy of admission agreement to resident's responsible person. It has been reported that the facility staff did not provide a copy of the admission agreement contract to the responsible person for Resident #1 (R1). Specifically, Staff #1 (S1) has not supplied a copy of the signed admission agreement for (R1) since (R1)’s admission in April 2025. (Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C) A review of Resident #1's (R1) Admissions Agreement, (dated March 19, 2025), shows that (R1)'s representative signed the agreement on that date. However, (R1) did not officially enter Terraza Court Senior Living until April 8, 2025. Additionally, the Agreement contract Appendix A through L records were not signed until April 28, 2025. On June 11, 2025, between 10:00 AM and 10:15 AM, the Department interviewed resident member identified as Resident #1 (R1). (R1) does not remember the exact date of admission but believes it was in April 2025. (R1) mentioned being present when (R1)'s representative signed the contract documents during the intake process. (R1) stated that (R1) did not receive a copy of the admissions contract, as a family member with power of attorney handles it. On June 11, 2025, between 10:15 AM and 11:00 AM, the Department interviewed staff members identified as Staff #1 and Staff #2 (S1-S2). (S1) confirmed to have been responsible staff who process the intake/admission for (R1). (S1) clarified that (R1) and (R1)'s family representative was present during the initial signing of the resident's agreement on March 19, 2025, along with the Community Care Licensing documents. However, (R1) did not officially move into the facility until April 8, 2025, and the remaining sections of the agreement, Appendix A through L, were not signed until April 28, 2025. In admission (S1) acknowledged that (S1) had not provided a copy of the resident's Admissions Agreement to (R1)'s family representative after (R1) signed the records. (S2) stated they were unaware that the Admissions Agreement had not been given to (R1)'s representative. Based on the information gathered, there is sufficient evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and analysis, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the allegations that are determined Substantiated . California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, and Chapter 8 are being cited on the attached LIC 9099-D. An exit interview was conducted, and Executive Director BRITTANY KAVANAUGH was provided with a copy of this report and appeals rights.