Complaint·November 19, 2025

During their interview, two of two staff denied the allegation and stated residents are able to make and receive private phone calls in their respective bedrooms using a land line or their own personal cell phone and stated a tablet is also available at the receptionist area and residents are able to use the tablet to make video calls at their own discretion and in the privacy of their own bedroom. Due to allegation being uncorroborated during interviews conducted, the Department is unable to determine if Licensee is not ensuring that resident has the ability to make and receive confidential phone calls. Although the above allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore at this time the above allegation is unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted and copy of this report was provided at the end of the inspection. LPA obtained a copy of R1’s Admission Agreement dated October 31, 2025 and observed it had not been signed by listed individuals in order in which they will serve and did not include named POA, W1’s signature. Based on R1’s record review and witness interview, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above allegations is found to be substantiated. Deficiencies are being cited per Title 22 Division 6 of the California Code of regulations. (See LIC9099-D). An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report, and appeal rights were left at the facility.