complaint·December 4, 2025

[Continued from LIC 9099] R1 is a non-ambulatory resident at the facility who utilizes a motorized wheelchair. Per R1's physician's report, they are able to leave the facility unassisted and have no diagnosis of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) or Dementia. On 10/7/25 the facility issued a 30-day notice to R1, and a copy was shared to the Department. Per review of the notice, it was discovered that the a phone number on the notice for appeals information was incorrect. LPA informed the facility of the technicality and that the notice was now invalid. On 11/10/25, the facility issued a new and corrected 30-day notice to R1, the reasons remaining the same: 1. Failure to comply with the house rules and policies of the facility 2. Engaging in behavior which is a threat to the mental and/or physical safety of others in the facility 3. Noncompliant with recommended medical treatment 4. Methamphetamine abuse per discharge papers for a hospital stay in September 2025 5. Suspected camera in R1's room 6. Resident cannot operate well in their electric wheelchair. Per the notice, sections 11 (house rules/policies) and 20 (conditions for eviction) of R1's admissions agreement contract were specified. Review of R1's admissions agreement revealed that under section 20 (conditions for eviction), subsection (D)(1): " The reasons relied upon for the eviction, with specific facts to permit determination of the date, place, witnesses, and circumstances concerning those reasons." Additionally, under section 11 (house rules/policies) it is noted that "failure to comply may result in a written warning. After sufficient warning, a notice of eviction will be given to the resident and/or responsible person." The notice itself did not supply specific incidents or information regarding the reasons for eviction. Per interview with administrative staff, it was revealed that no written documentation of incidents or previous meetings with R1 regarding their alleged misbehavior/facility concerns were held. It was revealed that verbal warnings were issued, but no documentation of such was able to be provided. An outside source interviewed revealed that they had received no supporting documentation from the facility for the reasoning for eviction. Another outside source interviewed revealed concerns that there was no substantial basis for the eviction in the first place, labeling it "suspicious." [Continued on LIC 9099-C] [Continued from LIC 9099-C] Per interviews with administrative staff, the main reasoning for the eviction was drug use, R1 leaving the facility and coming back "late at night," R1 having a camera in their room, and concerns about R1's ability to operate their wheelchair properly. Per review of medical discharge papers for R1's hospital stay in September 2025, one of the discharge diagnoses was "methamphetamine abuse." However, review of facility rules do not include anything against the use of drugs in the facility, only that smoking must be done outside the facility and in designated areas. One (1) staff member interviewed revealed that they have observed R1 smoking outdoors and down the street. Interview with R1 also corroborated that they smoke outside of the facility. In regards to coming and going from the facility, file review of R1's physician's report reveal that R1 is able to leave the facility unassisted, therefore the facility cannot necessarily restrict R1 from coming and going as they please. Additionally, staff interviews and file review of resident sign-in/out records corroborated that R1 does inform staff when they leave and that they sign out at the front desk. While multiple staff interviews corroborated that R1 does often return late at night, R1 is not disruptive when they return. However some staff interviews revealed that R1 does return appearing intoxicated at times. Several staff members interviewed revealed that R1 was in possession of the secured door code and is able to let themselves in at night, which again is not specifically outlined in the admissions agreement to be against house rules/policies. In regards to R1 having a camera in their room, again the facility rules do not include rules or policies regarding a resident setting a personal camera in their room. Staff interviews revealed concern for the privacy of R1's roommate. Interview with R1's roommate revealed that they were alright with the presence of the camera so long they were not included in the frame. Interview with R1 revealed the camera only records video and not audio, thus complying with applicable California State laws. Additionally, a notice was placed outside R1's room, providing notice of recording in progress inside. [Continued on LIC 9099-C] [Continued from LIC 9099-C] Regarding concerns with R1's ability to utilize their wheelchair, per R1's admissions agreement, all residents with motorized wheelchairs must have a doctor's note certifying the resident can operate it safely. Administrative staff confirmed R1 had a doctors note certifying approval upon move in. Staff interviews revealed mixed sentiments regarding R1's wheelchair use. While most acknowledged R1 has bumped and scraped doorways and corners with their wheelchair, two (2) stated that damages were not done on purpose, mentioning that R1 does try to be careful but that their wheelchair is wide, leading to occasional scrapes when navigating. Another two (2) staff interviewed revealed they believed the damages to be attributed to R1 being intoxicated and thus unable to steer correctly. File review of photos documented by the facility of property damage depict horizontal scrapes/markings on the lower half of R1's unit door. One additional photo of the exit door near R1's room also to have several scrapes, less in amount than shown on R1's door. Based on LPA's review of records, interviews with staff, residents, and outside sources, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation of unlawful eviction is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. A deficiency is being cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6 on the attached 9099D. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Caccam to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058) were provided. Their signature below confirms receipt of these documents.