complaint·October 29, 2025

An interview conducted with an outside source (OS1) revealed upon the transport driver's (OS2) arrival at R1's appointment they refused to exit the transport van. OS1 disclosed that OS2 revealed they returned R1 to the facility and upon arrival OS2 went to the front door for assistance getting R1 out of the van and two staff members (S1 and S2) came out to assist. S1 entered the van, while S2 stayed outside the van with OS2, and S1 was observed to be rough and abrasive when they assisted R1 out of the transport van. OS2 also disclosed that the other staff member (S2) did not intervene. An interview conducted with OS2 corroborated OS1’s statement and disclosed upon arrival to R1’s appointment contacted the transport agency's dispatch line to notify them they would be returning R1 to the facility because R1 would not get out of the van. The interview with OS2 also corroborated they observed S1 was rough with R1 and stated S1 grabbed R1 by the arm and forced them out of the van, and they rushed R1 by making comments such as “hurry up” “come on”. The Department also received footage of the incident that corroborated the chain of events described above, and from a different point or view (from the footage) S1 is also seen grabbing R1 by the seat of their pants. A review of the facility staff schedule confirmed S1 was the staff in question. [See LIC 811 for confidential names] Based on interviews and records review, the preponderance of evidence has been met that the alleged violation occurred and is therefore substantiated. Deficiency is cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22 (refer to the attached LIC9099-D). An exit interview was conducted with Caregiver Arcelao, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) will be provided at the conclusion of the visit. Caregiver Arcelao's signature below confirms receipt of these documents.