complaint·January 21, 2026

Based on the interviews, four out of six residents, three witnesses, and three staff confirmed all utilities remain working and the licensee remains in control of the property. In review of the Department's Notice of Application Submission Status dated January 29, 2024, the licensee is the legal title holder of the property per the notarized grant deed dated October 23, 2025. The licensee sold the business to Staff #2 (S2) per the business purchase agreement on August 29, 2025. The term of the lease agreement dated September 1, 2025 between licensee and S2 began September 1st ending August 31, 2031. LPA received an email from S2 on January 20, 2026 reporting their resignation as business owner and administrator, withdrawing the application from the Centralized Applications Bureau (CAB), and endorsing Staff #3 (S3) as of the same day. Per review of the subsequent notarized business purchase agreement dated January 18, 2026, S3 entered into agreement purchasing the business from the licensee and S2 as of January 16, 2026. The term of the lease agreement dated January 15, 2026 between licensee and S3 begins February 1, 2026 ending February 1, 2031. As of today's date, S3 confirmed not submitting the application to CAB. Regarding the allegation, It is alleged that the Licensee has sold the facility without proper notice, it is alleged that the responsible parties were not given notice of the sale of the facility (or business). Based on the interviews, four witnesses and the two residents who are self-responsible, were informed about the change in management from Staff #1 (S1) to Staff #2 (S2) either in person, by phone call, or via text. Although, the residents and or their representatives were informed about the sale of the business, the licensee failed to issue proper written notices to the Department at least 30 days prior to the transfer. The investigation reveals that "control of property" is a requirement imposed on the licensee and applied continuously, meaning a licensee must maintain "control" for the duration of the license, and the Department may require evidence of control of the licensed property. In the case of losing control of property, the licensee lost control when the business was sold to S2 and subsequently S3. Additionally, the Department and residents and/or their representatives were not informed in writing at least sixty (60) days prior the transfer of business, or at the time that bona fide offer is made, whichever period is longer for both business transactions to S2 and S3. Therefore, based on the interviews which were conducted and the records that were reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the following allegations: Licensee has lost control of property and Licensee has sold the facility without proper notice are deemed SUBSTANTIATED. Deficiencies are being cited on the attached LIC9099-D. An exit interview was conducted with Caregiver Maria Perkins in person and Administrator Jeannie Dao via telephone, and a copy of this report including the appeal rights and Confidential Names (LIC811) were provided at exit. LPA reviewed the text messages sent to the responsible party who is the conservator of Resident #1 (R1) per the conservatorship document dated April 24, 2024. LPA confirmed that conservator of R1 was notified of the change of administrator via text message. Regarding the allegation, Facility staff did not follow resident's dietary restrictions, it is alleged that the facility fed R1 eggs and bacon causing R1 to be admitted to the hospital from a reaction. The complainant denied the allegation indicating R1 not having a special diet and food allergies which includes eggs and bacon. In review of the Physician's Report (LIC602), it is confirmed that R1 does not have a special diet prescribed by the doctor. Five out of six residents and three out of three witnesses reports residents receiving three meals a day with snacks in between and expressed no concerns. Therefore, this agency has investigated the complaint and based on the observations made, interviews which were conducted, and the records that were reviewed, the following allegations: Facility staff did not communicate with resident's family and Facility staff did not follow resident's dietary restrictions are deemed UNFOUNDED. We have found that the complaint was unfounded, meaning that the allegations were false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. We have therefore dismissed the complaint. An exit interview was conducted with Caregiver Maria Perkins in person and Administrator Jeannie Dao via telephone, and a copy of this report including the Confidential Names (LIC811) were provided at exit.