complaint·July 7, 2023

During, in-person interview with S1. S1 stated that they received a call in March of 2023 from the attorney’s office. S1 relayed the information to their Administrator and Licensee. During, phone interview with Administrator. The Administrator stated that they spoke to attorney’s office in March of 2023 and had informed the Licensee that the office was requesting files on behalf of R1. In addition, the Administrator informed LPA Rico that they were not sure if the facility was allowed to send the files to attorney’s office. The Administrator stated that the Licensee was responsible for completing the request of records. During, phone interview with Licensee. The Licensee stated they were aware of the records request from responsible party of R1 since December of 2022 and the request from the attorney office in March of 2023. Licensee was confused if they were allowed to give records to responsible party and attorney office. Licensee acknowledged failing to release R1’s records. Based on the evidence gathered during today’s investigation, the one (1) allegation listed above are deemed SUBSTANTIATED. A finding that the complaints are SUBSTANTIATED means that the allegations are valid because the preponderance of evidence the standard has been met. During today’s visit, one (1) deficiency were cited per Title 22, Division 6, of the California Code of Regulations. An exit interview was conducted, and this report (LIC9099) and LIC9099D was discussed and provided to Administrator Brandon Marquez, along with a copy of the appeal rights.