Complaint·December 9, 2025

Per monthly statements, it includes the date, description and charged amount. During the interviews with residents, R2-R4 reported that they have not had issues with their billing and/or stated that they are being provided with adequate billing services. During the course of the interviews with staff, Staff 1 (S1) reported that the resident was billed properly for the services she was provided. Regarding the allegation that staff did not ensure resident’s sink was not in disrepair, the following was revealed: During the initial visit on May 16, 2024, and subsequent visit on November 21, 2025, LPA tour R1’s bedroom and observed that the sink was in good repair. During the interviews with residents, R2 reported that she has no issues with her sink and stated that maintenance will help quickly if needed. Per R3, the water goes down her sink properly. R4 stated that he has not had issues with his sink and reported that maintenance will assist the residents the same day. During the interviews with staff, S1 reported that they have a system where staff can open a ticket for repair/work orders. Per S1, staff always ensure that the residents’ sinks are working properly. S3 reported that R1 never complained about her sink being broken or clogged. Regarding the allegation that staff inappropriately installed a sensor on resident’s door , the following was revealed: During the initial and subsequent visits LPA tour R1’s bedroom and did not observe a sensor on the resident’s door. During the interviews with residents, R2-R4 reported that they have never seen a sensor on the residents' doors. During the interviews with staff, S1 reported that the facility never installs sensors on the residents’ doors. Per S2, she has never seen a sensor on the residents' doors. S3 stated that during the morning rounds that staff notice an aerial alarm/ sensor on the resident's door and reported that the next day the sensor was gone. Per S3, the facility staff did not place the sensor on the resident’s door. 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 Palposi, and a copy of this report was provided to the facility. Regarding the allegation that staff are not keeping track of resident's documents , the following was revealed: During the investigation LPA review the Resident file for R1. LPA observed that the file for R1 included the following documentation: Admission Agreement, Medical Assessment, Consent Forms, Identification and Emergency Information, Preplacement Appraisal Information, MAR, Resident Assessment, maintenance work orders, Resident Personal Rights, Safeguards for Property/Valuables and Cash Resources, and monthly billing statements. During the interviews with residents, R2-R4 reported that they have not had issues with their documents and/or reported that their Responsible Party (RP) received a copy of their records. During the interviews with staff, S2 reported that staff keep accurate track of the resident documents. Per S3, staff provided R1's RP with all documentation requested. Therefore, the allegations are deemed UNFOUNDED, meaning the allegations are false, could not have happened and/or are without a reasonable basis. LPA Ramirez conducted an exit interview with ED Palposi and a copy of this report was provided to the facility.