Complaint·January 21, 2026

LPA reviewed R1’s records and interviewed staff and the administrator. R1 moved into the facility on February 10, 2025. At first, R1 did not have behavioral problems. Over time, R1’s condition changed. Starting in March 2025, R1 began showing signs of aggression. By June and July 2025, R1 had several incidents where R1 yelled at or pushed other residents and staff. The facility held care meetings with R1’s responsible party on July 2 and August 6 2025 to talk about R1’s behavior and possible next steps. Hospice was added to help manage R1’s care. On August 12, 2025, R1 had a serious incident where R1 refused medication and attacked staff. Police and EMS were called, and R1 was taken to the hospital. The next day, August 13, R1’s responsible party removed all R1’s belongings from R1’s apartment. The administrator said the facility had not officially refused R1’s return yet, but during the August 6 meeting, they agreed R1 could not come back if R1’s behavior continued. After R1 moved out of the facility, the facility sent a letter titled “3-Day Eviction.” The administrator admitted this was a mistake because the resident had already moved out. The letter was sent only for documentation purposes and not to force R1 to leave. The admission agreement says the facility must give 30 days’ notice for termination unless DSS approves a 3-day eviction for emergencies. In this case, DSS approval was not requested because the resident had already left. The administrator said they will fix their process and use the correct type of letter in the future. Based on the information gathered, the allegation that the facility illegally evicted R1 is unsubstantiated . The evidence shows the R1’s responsible party decided to move R1 after care meetings and hospital transport. The “3-Day Eviction’’ letter was sent after the move and did not cause the eviction. Administrator admitted that the title was incorrect. An unsubstantiated finding means that although the allegation may have happened or valid, the preponderance of evidence standard is not met. No deficiencies were cited as a result of this visit. An exit interview was conducted with S1 and AD and a copy of this report and appeal rights were provided.