complaint·July 13, 2025

Investigation Revealed the Following: Allegation: Resident sustained unexplained bruises while in care. The details of the complaint alleged that (PR#1) sustained unexplained bruises. On 7/13/25, at approximately 8:00 AM, during the records review, the department observed a copy of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department Incident Report dated:12/23/2023. In the report, it is written that a deputy was dispatched to an elder abuse call at the facility. The deputy spoke with (PR#1), who stated that they did not recall how they sustained their injury. Additionally, (PR#1) immediately stated that nobody did that to them, "it could have done it to myself while I was asleep, I do not recall how the injury occurred". On 1/19/24, during an interview with resident 1 (PR#1), they stated that they did not know how the injury might have happened; they assumed that while they were asleep, one of their hand rings might have been the cause. Additionally, (PR#1) stated that neither the facility staff nor the agency caregivers had assaulted them, (PR#1) said "I would have known if those things had happened to me". On 2/9/24, during an interview with witness 1 (PW#1), they stated that (PR#1) never called them to inform them that someone at the facility had assaulted them. Additionally, the department asked (PW#1) if they believed (PR#1) was in any danger residing at the facility, (PW#1) stated “no”. Also, the department asked (PW#1) if they felt anyone at the facility physically assaulted (PR#1), causing their injury; (PW#1) stated they did not. On 2/14/24, during an interview with witness 2 (PW#2), they stated that they saw (PR#1)’s injury and asked them what happened. (PR#1) stated that they did not know what happened. Also, (PR#1) stated that they did not fall, nor did anyone assault them. Additionally, (PW#2) stated that they believe (PR#1) was “very smart”; they feel that (PR#1) would remember if something happened to them. Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C On 3/6/24, during an interview with witness 3 (PW#3), they stated that (PR#1) explained to them that they just woke up that morning, and they had a mark under their eye. (PW#3) stated that they asked (PR#1) if anyone had struck them; they said no one had struck them. Also, (PW#3) asked (PR#1) if they felt, and they said no. Additionally, (PW#3) stated that they suspected (PR#1) quite possibly rolled over onto something in their sleep, or invertedly hit their face on something in the middle of the night. On 1/19/24, during an interview with Assistant Executive Director (PA#1), they stated that the facility staff informed them about (PR#1)’s injury, and they had observed their injury. Additionally, (PA#1) stated that they asked (PR#1) what happened, and they just replied that they had a little injury and did not know how they sustained it. On 1/19/24 and 3/13/24, during interviews with staff members 1 and 2 (PS#1 and PS#2), they reported noticing (PR#1)’s injury and inquired about the incident. (PR#1) stated that they could not recall what had happened. During this investigation, LPA did not find sufficient evident to support the above-mentioned allegation(s). Based on the evidence gathered, interviews conducted, and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above-mentioned allegation(s) are found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the Complaint Report was given to Theresa Ramirez/Business Office Director.