complaint·February 12, 2026

LPA Haddadin interviewed the AD, who corroborated the allegations. AD stated that Caregiver (C1) was expected to be on site on the date OCFA responded; however, C1 was not present and was not cleared to work at the facility. The Administrator admitted that he did not obtain a criminal background clearance for C1 because C1 was expected to work only that one day to assist while the Administrator addressed a personal emergency. LPA also checked the Guardian System and was unable to find C1 on the cleared list. LPA was unable to interview C1 because C1 could not be located using the information provided by the Administrator. LPA attempted to interview the two residents in care; however, due to the residents’ cognitive and mental condition, LPA was unable to obtain reliable statements. Based on interviews conducted, and review of documents obtained, , the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the allegations are SUBSTANTIATED. The facility is being cited per Title 22 Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report along with appeal rights were provided to AD LPA conducted an interview with R1’s POA, who also denied the allegation and stated the facility made efforts to offer meals and fluids; however, R1 refused, which the POA reported had occurred at a prior facility as well. LPA conducted a walk-through of the facility and observed the facility maintained at least two days of perishable food and seven days of nonperishable food. LPA attempted to interview the two residents in care; however, due to the residents’ cognitive and mental condition, LPA was unable to obtain reliable statements. Based on observations, interviews, and record review, there is not a preponderance of evidence to determine whether the alleged violation occurred. Therefore, the allegation is determined to be unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided to the Administrator.