complaint·July 11, 2024

The investigation revealed the following: Allegation: Unlawful eviction. It is alleged that S1 has disclosed that they will not be allowing R1 back into the facility following a recent hospitalization. Per conversations with hospital staff, in which R1 has/had been hospitalized, S1 initially stated they will not be re-admitting R1 to facility upon discharge, however, recently S1 is now stating that they will need to reassess R1 prior to readmission. Per conversation with S1 they denied the above allegation and stated they have not evicted R1, nor have they submitted any eviction paperwork to Licensing. S1 stated that they will be reassessing R1 and make a determination on how to proceed following the reassessment. LPA provided S1 with information under Title 22 regulations for Reappraisals and explained to S1 that although R1 may not be fit for facility after discharge the facility must comply with Title 22 regulations and find a higher level of care for R1 if need be. S1 stated that if it is deemed that R1 will need a higher level of care they will work with R1's doctor to find proper placement for R1. LPA further explained to S1 that once R1 is ready to be discharged from hospital, the reassessment can be done after discharge, as there seems to be some trouble receiving documents needed for the reassessment. LPA also toured R1's room, this is a shared room, R1's bed is still vacant and R1 has their belongings in dresser within room. Allegation: Facility staff as is acting as substitute payee for resident. It is alleged that S1 has become R1’s payee and will be collecting funds for the month of August even though R1 will not be admitted back to the facility after their hospitalization. LPA interviewed S1 and S1 denied the above allegation, stating that when R1 was admitted to facility both S1 and R1 went to social security to designate S1 as the payee (which was agreed between family, R1 and S1), however, S1 has placed a hold on the paperwork for R1's family to be designated as the payee since then. S1 stated this was done as they feel the family is a better fit to be the designated payee. LPA spoke with sisters of R1 and it was agreed that family will be the payee for R1. Based on statements and interviews conducted with staff, and review of R1's file, there was not enough supportive evidence to concur with the reported allegations. Although the allegations 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 allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED . Exit interview held, and a copy of this report will be provided via email to Administrator Marjorie Hechanova this evening .