complaint·January 16, 2026

.Licensee stated R1 was offered meal options, however, often refused them. The Licensee added that staff made efforts to communicate with R1 to prepare alternative meals; however, R1 refused to collaborate with staff and frequently elected to order fast food. The Licensee reported other individuals would bring R1 bags of groceries and staff were often refused to allow to view or store the groceries. The Licensee reported the observations made about the food identified some of the items as sodas, chips and candy. Information obtained from three of three staff interviews corroborated the Licensee’s statement that they were aware of R1’s prescribed diet but that R1 frequently refused meal options and instead chose to order fast food and snacks to the facility. An interview with R1 revealed R1 reporting that they were not on a prescribed diet, and they chose to monitor their own food selections based on their health conditions. R1 corroborated fast food was their primary source of meals, explaining that facility staff did not provide them with meal options. Information obtained through interviews with other residents revealed 4 of 4 residents reported they were not on prescribed modified diets. These resident interviews also revealed they received their meals and were offered alternative options when requested. Through observations made by the LPA during the visit on February 18, 2025, it was noted that R1 was provided with a lunch that was not consistent with the prescribed modified diet. At that time, R1 was interviewed and reported that the lunch was at their request. Additionally, the LPA observed various snacks in R1’s room, including soda, candy, and potato chips. A review of R1’s physician’s report dated August 2, 2024, revealed R1 was prescribed a modified diet. The LPA also reviewed R1’s consumer notes dated November 2024 through January 2025, which revealed food refusals on approximately 12 occasions. A review of the visitor logs dated November 2024 through January 2025 revealed fast food deliveries for R1 approximately three times. Interview with Administrator stated R1 would instruct delivery drivers to drop off the food in the front and not to sign the visitors log upon request. Regarding the allegation R1’s medical assessment was incomplete and inaccurate, it was alleged staff provided a medical assessment for R1 that included incorrect information, a missing page and discrepancies that led belief the form may be fraudulent. It was alleged a medical assessment for R1 was requested and only pages 4 of 5 were received. The missing page did not allow a determination of the assessment date and the physician who conducted the assessment. An interview with the Licensee was conducted. The Licensee reported they provided the requested medical assessment for R1, and it included 5 of 5 pages. Continued on LIC 9099-C. The Licensee stated they accepted R1 with the medical assessment on file with R1’s previous assisted living facility. The Licensee’s intent was to schedule an updated assessment. The Licensee further reported that R1 did not have a primary physician upon admissions, so they assisted R1 with identifying a physician through R1’s provider. The licensee stated R1 refused follow-up visits. R1 also declined to provide any physician’s name, medical records, or information. The Licensee reported R1 declined to provide the information because R1 maintained the licensee had no right to these details. An interview with R1 could not be conducted to address this allegation. R1 was admitted to the facility on 11/8/2024. A review of R1’s medical assessment dated August 2, 2024 was conducted. The medical assessment consisted of 5 of 5 pages, which included the date of the assessment and the physician who conducted the assessment. LPA Perez made multiple attempts to obtain a review of the medical assessment; however, the physician who conducted the examination did not provide a response. Based on interviews, record reviews, and observations, the allegations have been deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED. A finding that the allegations are unsubstantiated means that although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violations occurred. This report was reviewed on provided to facility representative.