Complaint·March 29, 2024

S2 arrived during this visit. In an interview, S2 said S2 had been working at this facility since about mid-February. S2 said S1 had been working at this facility since before S2 started working here. LPA Moleski reviewed Guardian records and observed that S2 had been associated to this facility as of 3/27/24. Stumpf said S1 started working at this facility around the end of last year. Stumpf said that S2 had been working at the facility for less than a month. In an interview, a consultant who had been working for the licensee (S7) said multiple staff members worked at this facility without having appropriate criminal record associations. LPA Moleski reviewed S2's file. S2 did not have a health screening on file, despite having worked more than seven days at this facility. The department has determined the following as it relates to the allegations that staff members worked at this facility without criminal record association, and that staff files are incomplete: Based on interviews and record review, the above allegations are SUBSTANTIATED. A finding that the complaint allegations are substantiated means that the allegations are valid because the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. This facility is hereby cited per 22 CCR Section 87355(e)(2) and 87412(a)(11) . A civil penalty in the amount of $100 per day for a total of ten days was assessed. As this is the first violation of criminal record requirements documented at this facility, a total of five days for each day worked for each staff member is the maximum amount to be assessed. An exit interview was held with Stumpf. Appeal rights and a copy of this report were left with Stumpf.