complaint·January 30, 2026

[CONTINUED FROM LIC9099] S2 corroborated what was told by S1, and explained the fixation that AV had with them is due to AV’s mental state and the fact that when the resident first started with the facility, they were friendly with each other. On one occasion, AV mentioned that they lost money in their room and S2 offered to help, after which the accusations started. Resident 1 (R1), was familiar with AV and explained that AV had made accusations of stolen items in the past. R1 did not report the incidents due to doubts of the accusations being real, and due to AVs memory loss. LPA attempted to interview AV, however they were disoriented and not able to qualify for an interview, as they were not aware of the day nor were they able to confirm approximately how long they had lived in the facility. AV said they had no complaints against the facility at first, but after a while they stated that their objects and money was stolen and accused S2 of theft. On January 28, 2026, LPA interviewed AV’s responsible party (RS). RS stated that AV has a history of continuously reporting lost or stolen items and then finding them back. Per RS, that behavior has been repeated constantly affecting AV’s personal life due to accusing people close to them and loved ones. AV had also accused family members of stealing the same items for which they now accuse S2. RS was confident the items were not stolen. RS had no complaints about the facility or any of the staff and felt that AV could not be in a better place. On a visit on January 30, 2026, LPA interviewed the facility administrator (ADM) who provided records of the resident complaint as well as notes of the meeting held with AV and RS which corroborated that RS was aware of the situation and the proper actions were taken. Based on records reviewed, LPA observations, and interviews conducted with the victim, the victim’s POA, clients, and staff, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met, and the allegation is deemed unsubstantiated. No deficiencies were cited in accordance with the California Code of Regulations. An exit interview was conducted with Facility Administrator Jessica Zepeda. A copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC 9058, 03/22) were provided.