complaint·May 9, 2024

LPA Moleski reviewed a police report dated 4/22/24. In this report, officers wrote that their case was closed “pending further investigative leads.” Per 22 CCR Section 87218, “the licensee shall be presumed to have made reasonable efforts to safeguard resident property if there is clear and convincing evidence of efforts to meet each requirement specified in [HSC] Section 1569.153.” LPA Moleski took the following actions to determine whether this facility had made efforts to meet each requirement of that section: LPA Moleski observed that the facility’s theft and loss policy is posted near the main entrance to the facility. LPA Moleski toured R1’s former apartment. The doors to the room cannot lock, and R1 had a roommate. LPA Moleski observed locking cabinets available for the storage of personal property. According to Revera, all caregivers have access to these cabinets. In an interview, R1’s RP said they had not requested any other secured, locked storage space for valuables. LPA Moleski reviewed R1’s file. R1 was diagnosed with dementia and lived in the facility’s memory care unit. LPA Moleski observed information regarding the facility’s theft and loss prevention program present in R1’s admission agreement and in the resident handbook provided to new residents. However, the contents of HSC Sections 1569.152 through 1569.154 were not present in the materials provided to R1 and/or R1’s RP, as required per HSC 1569.153(k). The resident handbook states that employees are provided these sections. LPA Moleski observed that R1 and/or R1’s RP declined to establish an inventory of personal property upon admission. HSC Section 1569.153(d) states that “The facility shall not be liable for items which have not been requested to be included in the inventory.” In an interview, R1’s RP said they did not recall having established an inventory of property for R1. This facility’s declination form clearly indicates that the facility is not liable for items not included in the inventory. LPA Moleski requested records of semiannual reviews of theft and loss procedures and policies, pursuant to HSC Section 1569.153(g). Records were not available as semiannual reviews have not been conducted, according to Revera. [continued 9099-C] LPA Moleski reviewed this facility’s written theft and loss policy. The policy states that the facility shall “document loss of personal property within 72 hours of the discovery of the loss or theft” and that “documentation will be made and maintained on Licensing Form #9060.” In an interview, Revera said these forms were not used to document the missing items as described above. The facility’s existing documentation regarding the missing rings does not contain estimated values for the items, as required per HSC Section 1569.153(c)(2), despite estimates of the missing rings having been given to police on 4/22/24. Additionally, R1’s RP told LPA Moleski that a chair owned by R1’s family was not present in R1’s room upon R1’s death. LPA Moleski interviewed the facility’s memory care director (S1), who was aware that the chair had been reported missing. S1 did not know the location of the chair, and said that it may have been moved out of the room at some point to prevent falls. A report of this missing chair was not included in any of the incident reports received by LPA Moleski, and no report was made on an LIC 9060 form as specified in this facility’s theft and loss policy. Based on the above findings, this facility shall not be liable for repayment or replacement of the missing items, as they were not entered into an inventory of personal property. However, the facility has not implemented several required elements of its theft and loss program: The facility did not document the missing items described above as stipulated in its theft and loss policy, did not include estimated values of the rings, did not document the missing chair, did not conduct semiannual reviews of theft and loss procedures and policies, and did not provide R1 and/or R1’s RP with HSC Sections 1569.152 through 1569.154 upon admission. Therefore, based on interviews, observation, and record review, the above allegation is SUBSTANTIATED, which means that the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. This facility is hereby cited per HSC Section 1569.153. An exit interview was held with Revera. Appeal rights and a copy of this report were left with Quintanilla.