Inspector’s narrative
What the inspector wrote
Continued LIC9099-C page 2
The Department obtained copies of the following documents: The staff and residents roster, admission agreement, physician's report, medical assessment, medication administration records (MARs), consent forms, replacement appraisal information, identification and emergency information, appraisal needs and service plan, safeguards for cash resources, staff training on reporting dependent and adult and elder abuse, staff in-service training, and ongoing staff training.
Allegation: Staff engaged in an intimate relationship with a resident.
It was alleged that the staff engaged in an intimate relationship with a resident. The department investigated the allegation. Interviews were conducted with staff members 1-4 (S1-S4) and facility residents 1-10 (R1-R10). A resident reported maintaining a dating and sexual relationship with a facility staff member. The staff admitted to having a sexual relationship with the facility resident, and both the resident and staff member reported going to a local motel together. The department corroborated this information with a printout of the reservation from the local motel. There is sufficient evidence to support the allegation that the facility staff was involved in an intimate relationship with the facility resident.
The investigation revealed the following:
The Department conducted interviews with staff members 1-4 (S1-S4) and residents (R1-R10). S1-S2 stated that on 04/18/2024, a resident came into the office to report a dating relationship with a staff member that had been ongoing for approximately six weeks. The resident ended the relationship due to the age difference and because the staff member was harassing the resident for the $4,000.00 that the staff member claimed to have spent on the relationship. Both the resident and staff member admitted to the Department that they had been in a consensual romantic and intimate relationship for about two to three months. They both stated that no elder abuse occurred and that the relationship was consensual.
Staff member S4 stated he was not employed at the facility at the time of the alleged incident and had no knowledge of the allegation.
See continued LIC9099-C page 3
Continued LIC9099-C page 3
Residents R2-R10 stated they had never witnessed or heard of any resident being in a consensual relationship with staff. Staff members S1-S4 stated that the facility has a zero-tolerance policy against inappropriate relationships between staff and residents. S1 also stated that a Special Incident Report had been reported to the appropriate agencies in a timely manner, prior to the complaint allegation.
Based on the Department's observations, interviews that were conducted, and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, and Chapter 8 are being cited on the attached LIC9099-D.
Appeal rights were discussed, and copies of the Complaint Investigation Report LIC9099, LIC9099-Cs, and LIC9099-D were provided to Co-Executive Director Jonathan Barrios.
An exit interview was conducted.
Continued LIC9099-C, page 2
The Department obtained copies of the following documents: The staff and residents roster, admission agreement, physician's report, medical assessment, medication administration records (MARs), consent forms, replacement appraisal information, identification and emergency information, appraisal needs and service plan, safeguards for cash resources, staff training on reporting dependent and adult and elder abuse, staff in-service training, and ongoing staff training.
Allegation: Staff financially exploited a resident.
The Department conducted interviews regarding the allegation that staff financially exploited a resident. Staff members 1 and 4 (S1-S4) stated they conducted an investigation after being notified of the incident by the resident. However, the facility had no evidence of any staff financially exploiting a resident. There were no witnesses or documents indicating that the resident owed any money to the staff member. S1-S4 stated that the facility has a zero-tolerance policy against inappropriate relationships between staff and residents.
The resident stated he was in a consensual relationship with one of the staff members. According to the resident, after he ended the relationship, the staff member began harassing the resident, claiming the resident owed the staff $4,000 for money the staff had spent on the resident during the relationship. The resident explained that he is on a fixed income, did not agree to reimburse the staff member, and does not have the money to do so. A resident reported that on 04/18/2024, the staff member again requested the alleged amount. The resident stated he went to the administrator to file a complaint, wanting the harassment to stop and avoid further contact. Neither the resident nor the staff member provided receipts or documentation regarding the amount claimed. The resident no longer resides at the facility, and the staff member is no longer employed there. Residents 1 through 10 (R1-R10) reported satisfaction with the facility, stating that the staff provides a comfortable living environment and meets their daily needs. All residents (R2-R10) stated that they have never experienced financial exploitation by staff. Staff 4 (S4), stated that he was not an employee at the time of the alleged incident and had no knowledge of the allegation. The Department did not have sufficient evidence to determine the veracity of the allegation.
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.
A copy of the Complaint Investigation Report LIC9099-A, and LIC9099-C was provided to the Co-Executive Director Jonathan Barrios. There were no deficiencies cited. An exit interview was conducted
