Complaint·October 1, 2025

Per S2, she did not witness the caregiver handling the resident in a rough manner. During the interviews with witnesses, Witness 1 (W1) stated that it is hard to know if the incident happened since she was not there during incident. Regarding the allegation that staff did not respond to resident’s call in a timely manner, the following was revealed: During the initial visit on April 3, 2025, LPA pull the call light for R1 and R3. Staff responded to the call light between one minute and 21 seconds to two minutes and 57 seconds. During the course of the investigation LPA reviewed documents including the Citrus Hills Assisted Living call light dated March 27, 2025, for R1. Per call light log R1 used the call light two times and was assisted between four minutes and 26 seconds to 30 minutes and 49 seconds. During the course of the interviews with residents, R3 reported that staff respond to the resident's call within 10-20 minutes. Per R4, she does not use the call bell and stated that staff respond within 25 minutes because staff are busy. R5 reported that staff respond to the residents’ calls in a timely manner. During the course of the interviews with staff, S1 reported that the resident's call bell was answer within five minutes. S2 stated that the resident waited approximately 30 minutes. Regarding the allegation that staff refused to shower resident, the following was revealed: During the course of the investigation LPA reviewed documents including the Unusual Incident/Injury Report (UIIR) dated April 3, 2025, for R1. Per UIIR on March 27, 2025, R1 refused to shower. LPA reviewed documents including the Citrus Hills Assisted Living shower schedule. Per shower schedule R1 is schedule for a shower on Mondays and Fridays. During the course of the interviews with residents, R2-R4 reported that staff have never refuse to shower them and/or stated that staff always help when taking a shower. During the course of the interviews with staff, S1 reported that resident refused to shower. Per S2, resident refused to shower. Based on the information gathered during the investigation and review of documents obtained, LPA is unable to ascertain if the allegations occurred as reported due to conflicting information. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove or refute the alleged violations occurred; therefore, these allegations are deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED. For today’s visit, there were no citations issued per Title 22, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. LPA conducted an exit interview with ED Marinko, and a copy of this report was provided to the facility. During the course of the interviews with witnesses, Witness 1 (W1) reported that her father is pretty self sufficient. Per W1, the facility did notified her of the incident. Therefore, the allegation is deemed UNFOUNDED, meaning the allegation is false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. For today’s visit, there were no citations issued per Title 22, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. LPA Ramirez conducted an exit interview with ED Marinko, and a copy of this report was provided to the facility.