Complaint·May 10, 2023

Investigation Revealed the following. Allegation: Staff did not refund resident LPA conducted an interview with S1, S1 denies the allegation. S1 informed LPA that all prorated rent monies are refunded to residents in a timely manner if due. S1 stated there are no residents, that S1 is aware of, that have not received a refund that is due. S1 also stated to LPA that R1 or (CW1) is not entitled to receive a refund for the days residing at the facility. S1 stated that R1 was receiving basic service for three months as requested by CW1. S1 stated that (CW1) signed the agreement within the scope of the agreement there contains a 30-day notice clause when leaving the facility. LPA interviewed CW1, CW1 provided a signed copy of the agreement signed by CW1 containing the 30-day notice clause. CW1 did not provide a power of attorney to LPA, however CW1 was acting as R1’s representative. CW1 stated that she was under the impression that there was a three-month minimum charge for residing at the facility. CW1 stated R1 left the facility after receiving a bill for the beginning of the fourth month of residency which was not paid by CW1 per S1, thus leaving a balance due to the facility per S1. LPA reviewed the records. Based on information gathered, the department did not find sufficient evidence to support the allegation. Although the allegation may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations, did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is Unsubstantiated . An exit interview was conducted and a copy of the LIC 9099 was provided to Edith Nagel Administrator.