complaint·October 21, 2025

(Continuation from LIC9099) During an interview conducted with Resident #1 (R1), R1 reported waiting an hour until staff arrived to assist R1. A record review conducted for the signal system revealed that on 4/18/2023, R1 waited 65 minutes for care staff to arrive for assistance. Interviews conducted with (5) residents corroborated waiting long periods of time to receive assistance once a pendant was activated. Based on records review and interviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. Therefore, the allegation of staff did not respond to residents call for assistance in a timely manner is deemed substantiated. A finding that the complaint is SUBSTANTIATED means that the allegation is valid because the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met. California Code of Regulations Title 22 is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the LIC9099, LIC 9099D, and appeal rights were reviewed and provided to Executive Director, Brooke Huerta. (Continuation from LIC9099) Interviews conducted with (4) four out of (6) six staff reported there being an alternative main course menu for residents with dietary restrictions which allowed residents to choose what they wanted to eat if the resident could not eat something that was served in the scheduled main course meal. Interviews with staff further reported that kitchen staff had a list of resident names and their dietary restrictions to ensure the residents needs were met. Interview with Staff #1 (S1) reports their being alternatives available to residents but not being of nutritional value. LPA attempted to conduct an interview with Staff #2 (S2) who declined LPA’s interview request. Records review conducted of the facility’s weekly menu documents main course meals to have pork products multiple times a week for every mealtime (i.e. breakfast, lunch, and dinner) but offered alternatives to substitute a main course item. Therefore, the allegation of staff do not meet the needs of the resident’s religious dietary preferences is deemed unsubstantiated. A finding that is deemed unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have occurred, there is not enough evidence to prove the violation did or did not take place. Exit interview conducted and copy of report provided Executive Director, Brooke Huerta.