Complaint·April 29, 2026

Interviews were conducted with three current facility residents (R2-R4), who were admitted after both R1 and S1 left the facility. All denied being sexually abused or handled in rough manner and denied having any knowledge of any other resident being sexually abused or handled in a rough manner. During interview, Staff 2 (S2) stated they were employed at the facility after R1 and S1 had left the facility and were not personally acquainted with them. S2 denied having any knowledge of S1 sexually abusing or handling R1 in a rough manner. S2 denied personally sexually abusing or handling a current or former resident in a rough manner or having any knowledge of any current or former staff sexually abusing or handling a current or former resident in a rough manner. During interview, Staff 3 (S3) stated they were acquainted with S1 and had previously worked with them. S3, however, stated they were not acquainted with R1, as they were not working at the facility at the time that R1 was a resident. S3 denied having any knowledge of S1 sexually abusing or handling R1 in a rough manner. S3 denied personally sexually abusing or handling a current or former resident in a rough manner or having any knowledge of any current or former staff sexually abusing a current or former resident. Regarding allegation, Staff hit resident with objects, the following was revealed: Complaint alleges S1 hit R1 on the head twice with a soiled diaper and once with a bag of popcorn. LPA was unable to interview R1 as they have not resided at the facility since July 2022, and contact information for them was no longer available. LPA was also unable to interview S1, as they retired in 2022 and their contact information was no longer available. All current facility residents were admitted after both R1 and S1 left the facility. Three of three residents interviewed denied being hit with objects or having any knowledge of any other residents being hit with objects. During interview, S2 stated they were employed at the facility after R1 and S1 had left the facility and were not personally acquainted with them. S2 denied having any knowledge of S1 hitting R1 with objects and denied personally hitting a current or former resident with objects or having any knowledge of any current or former staff hitting a current or former resident with objects. During interview, Staff 3 (S3) stated they were acquainted with S1 and had previously worked with them. S3, however, stated they were not acquainted with R1, as they were not working at the facility at the time that R1 was a resident. S3 denied having any knowledge of S1 hitting R1 with objects and denied personally hitting a current or former resident with objects or having any knowledge of any current or former staff hitting a current or former resident with objects. Regarding allegations, Facility is malodorous and Facility floors are dirty, the following was revealed: Complaint alleges facility smelled of urine and the floors were sticky. (Cont. LIC9099-C) Three of three residents interviewed denied the facility being malodorous or the floors being sticky. During interview, Staff 2 (S2) stated they heard that prior to their employment, the facility had smelled of urine, and the floors had been dirty, however, stated they never observed the floors were dirty or the facility to smell of urine and stated they maintain the facility floor clean and odor free. During interview, S3 denied the facility smelling of urine or the facility floors being dirty. Per S3, the facility used to smell of “chlorine” and floor cleanliness has been and continues to be maintained. During the course of the investigation, LPA noted the facility was odorless and the tile flooring was free of any stickiness, smearing, smudging, or discoloration. Based on information gathered, the department did not find sufficient evidence to support the allegations, “Staff sexually abused a resident while in care, Staff handled a resident in a rough manner, Staff hit a resident with objects, Facility is malodorous, and Facility floors are dirty”. 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 above allegations are Unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted and copy of this report was provided at the end of the inspection.