complaint·January 31, 2025

LPA conducted interviews with Staff #1-3 who informed LPA that after the incident took place that management offered R#1 and R#2 to be relocated and placed into different room area to avoid contact between both, and R#1 and R#2 denied the relocation alternative. Staff #1 and Staff #2 informed LPA that a close monitorization for R#1 and R#2 was also implemented. Second allegation: Staff did not provide a comfortable environment for resident. Regarding the allegation “Staff did not provide a comfortable environment for resident” LPA conducted an interview with R#1 who informed LPA that R#1 felt like the facility did not do the extreme to remove R#2 from the facility. R#1 explained to LPA that management provided alternatives such as, placing R#1 in a different room away from R#2, R#1 denied the suggestion. R#1 informed LPA that staff would ensure to ask R#1 if R#1 was okay and provided close visual between R#1 and R#2. R#1 stated that R#2 should have been relocated. LPA conducted an interview with R#2 who informed LPA that R#2 maintains a distance from R#1 as suggested by staff and local law enforcement. LPA conducted interviews with staff who informed LPA that a close visual is being maintained for as safety precaution between R#1 and R#2. Based on corroborating evidence obtained during the course of the investigation, LPA has determined that the above allegations are Unsubstantiated. Unsubstantiated: meaning that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. An exit interview was conducted where this report (LIC 9099) was discussed, and a copy was provided to Facility Administrator Erika Montoya at the end of the visit.